THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL APPRAISAL IN …
94
i THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL APPRAISAL IN MATLOSANA AREA PROJECT OFFICE SCHOOLS by TSIETSI SHADRACK LETLHOO Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION in the subject EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA SUPERVISOR: DR. P. MAFORA JANUARY 2011
Transcript of THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL APPRAISAL IN …
i
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL APPRAISAL IN
MATLOSANA AREA PROJECT OFFICE SCHOOLS
by
TSIETSI SHADRACK LETLHOO
Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in the subject
EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT
at the
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
SUPERVISOR: DR. P. MAFORA
JANUARY 2011
i
DECLARATION
I declare that THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL APPRAISAL IN
MATLOSANA AREA PROJECT OFFICE SCHOOLS is my own work and that all
the sources that I have quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of
complete references.
XT.S. Letlhoo
Mr
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this Dissertation of Limited Scope to my wife NTOMBIZANELE LETLHOO,
my mother, BEFINA LETLHOO, my children, TSHOLO, BOIPELO, BOITSHOKO,
LINDIWE and LESEDI and ALL my brothers. I also dedicate it to my late father
MALEKE LETLHOO, my late two brothers METLHOLO and KGOTSO and my late
two sisters SIMOLLANG and KEBOGILE. May God sanctify their souls.
iii
ABSTRACT
The study examines the effectiveness of the implementation of Developmental Appraisal
(DA) within the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) in selected secondary
schools in Matlosana, North West Province.
The methods used to gather information includes the literature review and the empirical
investigation, based on the qualitative research approach, which involved six focus group
interviews from the six sampled secondary schools in Matlosana Area Project Office, in
the North West Province.
The review of related literature revealed that there are roles and responsibilities officials
are tasked with; processes; challenges; and effective strategies when implementing DA.
The empirical investigation revealed that there are challenges that hamper the effective
implementation of DA in schools. The challenges include: inadequate support from the
Area Project Office; lack of resources for educator development; inadequate time frames
for implementation; disruption of normal teaching and learning; lack of honesty on the
part of the appraisee and appraiser; and conflict. At the end, the study recommends some
strategies that can be used to overcome some of these challenges.
Key terms:
Developmental Appraisal, roles of School Developmental Teams (SDTs), perceptions of
effectiveness.
iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS
APO – Area Project Office
DA – Developmental Appraisal
DAS – Developmental Appraisal System
DSG – Development Support Group
ELRC – Education Labour Relation Council
EMD – Education Management and Development
HOD – Head of Department
IQMS – Integrated Quality Management System
NGO – Non-Governmental Organisation
OBE – Outcomes Based Education
PGP – Personal Growth Plan
PM – Performance Measurement
SADTU – South African Democratic Teachers Union
SDT – Staff Development Team
SIP – School Improvement Plan
SMT – School Management Team
UK – United Kingdom
WSE – Whole School Evaluation
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
DECLARATION i
DEDICATION ii
ABSTRACT iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS iv
CHAPTER ONE 1
ORIENTATION OF THE RESEARCH 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Statement of the problem 2
1.3 Objectives of the Research 3
1.4 Research Method 3
1.4.1 Research Design 3
1.4.2 Data Collection 4
1.4.2.1 Interview 4
1.4.2.2 Literature 4
1.4.2.3 Data Analysis 5
1.4.2.4 Trustworthiness 5
1.5 Demarcation of the Research 5
1.6 Clarification of Concepts 6
1.7 Division of Chapters 7
1.8 Conclusion 8
CHAPTER TWO 9
LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2.1 Personnel/Staff Appraisal 10
2.2.2 Developmental Appraisal 13
2.3.1 Roles and Responsibilities of officials tasked with the implementation of
Developmental Appraisal (DA) 20
2.3.1.1 The Principal 20
2.3.1.2 The Educator 21
vi
2.3.1.3 School Management Team (SMT) 21
2.3.1.4 Staff Development Team (SDT) 22
2.3.1.5 Development Support Group (DSG) 23
2.3.1.6 The Area Office 24
2.3.2 The Processes of Implementing Developmental Appraisal 25
2.3.2.1 Planning 25
2.3.2.2 Self-evaluation by the educator 25
2.3.2.3 Pre-evaluation Discussion 26
2.3.2.4 Lesson Observation 27
2.3.2.5 Evaluation In Respect of Other Performance Standards 28
2.3.2.6 Feedback and Discussion 28
2.3.2.7 Resolution of Differences or/Grievances 29
2.3.2.8 Monitoring 29
2.3.2.9 Second and Subsequent Year of Implementation 30
2.4.1 Challenges on the Implementation of DA 30
2.4.2 Effective Strategies of Implementing DA 34
2.5 Conclusion 36
CHAPTER THREE 38
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 38
3.1 Introduction 38
3.2 Research Design 38
3.3 Data Collection Method 40
3.3.1 Focus Group Interviews 40
3.3.2 The Interview Schedule 42
3.4 Sampling 42
3.4.1 Site Selection 42
3.4.2 Participants Selection 43
3.5 Data Analysis 43
3.6 Trustworthiness 45
3.6.1 Truth Value 45
3.6.2 Applicability 45
vii
3.6.3 Consistency 46
3.6.4 Neutrality 46
3.7 Ethical Considerations 46
3.8 Conclusion 47
CHAPTER FOUR 48
DATA ANALYSIS 48
4.1 Introduction 48
4.2 Brief Synopsis of Methodology 48
4.3 Data Analysis Process 49
4.4 Research Findings 49
4.4.1The Processes of Developmental Appraisal within the IQMS 50
4.4.1.1 Planning 50
4.4.1.2 Lesson Observation 51
4.4.1.3 Feedback and Discussions 52
4.4.1.4 Resolution of Differences 52
4.4.1.5 Self-evaluation 53
4.4.1.6 Pre-evaluation Discussions 53
4.4.1.7 Monitoring 54
4.4.2 The Roles of the SDT in Implementing DA 54
4.4.2.1 Prepares and Monitors management plan 55
4.4.2.2 Develops school improvement plan 55
4.4.2.3 Submits all the necessary documents to APO 56
4.4.2.4 Ensures that all members are trained 56
4.4.2.5 Facilitates and give guidance on DSG establishment 56
4.4.3 The Roles of the APO officials in the implementation of DA 57
4.4.3.1 Monitoring 57
4.4.3.2 Control 57
4.4.3.3 Educator development 58
4.4.4 Perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the SDT and APO officials in
implementing DA 58
4.4.4.1 The Effectiveness of the SDT 58
viii
4.4.4.2 The Effectiveness of the APO officials 59
4.4.5 Challenges on the Implementation of DA 60
4.4.5.1 Inadequate support from the APO 60
4.4.5.2 Lack of resources for educator development 61
4.4.5.3 Inadequate time frames for implementation 61
4.4.5.4 Disruption of normal teaching and learning 61
4.4.5.5 Lack of honesty on the part of appraisee and appraiser 62
4.4.5.6 Conflict 62
4.5 Summary of the findings 62
4.6 Conclusion 63
CHAPTER FIVE 64
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION 64
5.1 Introduction 64
5.2 Summary 64
5.3 Summary of important findings 66
5.3.1 Findings from Literature 66
5.3.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities of officials tasked with the Implementation of DA 66
5.3.1.2 The Processes of Implementing DA 67
5.3.1.3 Challenges on the Implementation of DA 68
5.3.1.4 Effective strategies of Implementing DA 69
5.3.2 Conclusion from the empirical investigations 69
5.3.2.1 The processes of DA within IQMS 70
5.3.2.2 The roles of the SDT in implementing DA 71
5.3.2.3 The roles of the APO officials in implementing DA 72
5.3.2.4.1 Educators’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the SDT in
implementing DA 72
5.3.2.4.2 Educators’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of APO officials in
implementing DA 73
5.3.2.5 Challenges on the implementation of DA 73
5.4 Recommendations 73
5.4.1 Training APO officials, SDTs and Educators in DA 74
ix
5.4.2 Provision of resources 74
5.4.3 Proper planning for the implementation 74
5.4.4 Promoting honesty 74
5.4.5 Dealing with conflict 75
5.5 Limitation of the study 75
5.6 Further Research 75
5.7 Conclusion 76
BIBLIOGRAPHY 77
APPENDIX A 83
1
CHAPTER ONE
ORIENTATION OF THE RESEARCH
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Prior to 1995 there was no acceptable evaluation system in South Africa to evaluate
educators. The inspectors or subject advisors used to write reports about educators and
kept them without giving educators feedback. The reports were however used when a
decision was to be taken about whether an educator was to be promoted or not. This
made the educators unhappy and the educators decided that these inspectors and subject
advisors should not be allowed to enter schools. They used learners to chase them out of
schools (Gardiner, 2004:22). They felt that there was a need to develop an instrument
which would be acceptable to all stakeholders and would enhance the development of the
competency of educators and quality of public education in South Africa (ELRC,
1998:51).
In order to resolve the conflict outlined above the Department of Education and the
Educator Unions entered into negotiations. The negotiations resulted in a National
Teacher Appraisal project which was set up in 1995. The project resulted in a new
appraisal instrument for educators including inspectors and subject advisors (Mpolweni,
1998:55). This new instrument was called Developmental Appraisal System (DAS). DAS
was to be implemented in 1998 but this did not happen. The teacher organisations,
especially South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU) did not agree with the
Department of Education on certain issues on the implementation of DAS. They argued
that the instrument used to appraise educators was a duplication of the instrument used in
performance measurement and was therefore, not developmental. Negotiations were held
again at the Education Labour Relation Council, and an agreement was reached to
integrate Developmental Appraisal System, Performance Measurement System and
Whole School Evaluation. The result was the introduction of the Integrated Quality
Management System (IQMS) (ELRC, 2003:1).
2
The purpose of Integrated Quality Management System is to identify specific needs of
educators, schools and district offices for support and development; to provide support
for continued growth; to promote accountability; to monitor an institution’s overall
effectiveness; and to evaluate an educator’s performance. The main aim of
Developmental Appraisal System within the Integrated Quality Management System is to
facilitate the personal and professional development of educators in order to improve the
quality of teaching practice and educational management (ELRC, 1998:3). Its purpose is
to appraise individual educators in a transparent manner with a view to determining the
areas of strength and weakness, and draw up programmes for individual development
(ELRC, 2003:1).
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Although the Developmental Appraisal as component of IQMS seeks to identify
educators’ personal and professional needs and to facilitate their development, it is
common to hear teachers expressing their discontent with some aspects of this appraisal
system. Teachers, for example, complain about the classroom visits in appraisal, which
they see as unfair, inappropriate and more about accountability than development
(Declerq, 2008:13). This study, therefore, seeks to examine teacher perceptions regarding
the effectiveness of the implementation of DA in the Matlosana Area Project Office
Schools.
In the light of the above the main research problem is divided into the following sub-
questions:
How are the processes of Developmental Appraisal being carried out in the
Matlosana Area Project Office schools?
What are the roles of the School Development Teams and the Area Project Office
in the implementation of Developmental Appraisal in the Matlosana Area Project
Office schools?
What are the perceptions of educators regarding the effectiveness of the School
Development Teams and the Area Project Office in the Implementation of
Developmental Appraisal in the Matlosana Area Project Office schools?
3
What recommendations can be made that may serve as guidelines for the effective
implementation of Developmental Appraisal?
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
The objectives of this research are to:
describe the processes of Developmental Appraisal implementation in the
Matlosana Area Project Office schools;
describe the roles of the School Development Teams and the Area Project Office
in the implementation of Developmental Appraisal in the Matlosana Area Project
Office schools;
ascertain the views of educators regarding the effectiveness of School
Development Teams and the Area Project Office in the implementation of
Developmental Appraisal; and
make recommendations that may serve as guidelines for the effective
implementation of Developmental Appraisal within the IQMS.
1.4 RESEARCH METHOD
1.4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN
According to McMillan and Schumacher (2001:172), a research design describes how the
study was conducted. It summarises the procedures for conducting the study, including
when, and under what conditions the data will be obtained. Research methods are the
ways one collects and analyses data.
The research approach to be used in this study will be the qualitative research method,
which means data will be collected in a face to face situation by interacting with
educators and principals in their natural settings. Qualitative research method values
richness of data and depth of understanding (Collins, Du Plooy, Grobbelaar, Terre
Blanche, Van Eeden, Van Rensburg and Wigston, 2000:134). This method will also be
used because it offers opportunities for conducting exploratory and descriptive research
that assume the value of context and setting, and that searches for deeper understanding
of the participants’ experiences (Best and Kahn, 1998:239). This method is therefore
4
considered relevant for investigating the educators’ perceptions regarding the
effectiveness of the implementation of Developmental Appraisal within the IQMS.
1.4.2 DATA COLLECTION
1.4.2.1 INTERVIEWS
Focus Group Interviews will be used to collect data in this research. According to
Schulze, Myburgh and Poggenpoel (2005:69), focus groups are more economical than
conducting numerous individual interviews, the group dynamics is a synergistic factor in
bringing information out and participants have more confidence in expressing their
feelings honestly within a support group of peers than in individual interviews. For this
reason the focus group is seen as the best method of collecting data in this study.
The participants will be drawn from six secondary schools. Random sampling will be
used to select the six secondary schools from the four clusters in the Area Project Office.
One principal, one head of department and three educators will be selected from each
sampled school. A total of six focus groups will be established from the six selected
schools. Each focus group will therefore be comprised of five members, namely, the
principals, one head of department and three educators. A variety of opinions will be
obtained from both management and educators on the implementation of DA (Collins et
al., 2000:177). Five guiding questions will be formulated and the researcher will guide
the discussions during the interviews. The interviews will be audio-taped and transcribed
verbatim.
1.4.2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
A review of the literature is done in order to provide the theoretical framework of the
research. According to Schulze, Myburg and Poggenpoel (2005:21), a literature study is a
systematic, critical analysis and summary of existing literature relevant to the current
research topic. It involves reading an appropriate proportion of voluminous literature that
is available. The purpose of the literature review will be to get more information on the
processes of DA implementation and how effective DA can be implemented in SA and
other countries.
5
1.4.2.3 DATA ANALYSIS
According to Schulze, Myburg and Poggenpoel (2005:15), the aim of analysing and
interpreting research findings is to increase the validity of research by ensuring that errors
and inaccuracies are eliminated. The focus group interviews will be tape-recorded,
transcribed verbatim (word for word) and analysed. The Johnson and Christenson method
will be used to analyse data. The following steps will be followed:
Segmenting;
Coding;
Compiling master list;
Checking for intercoder and intracoder reliability;
Enumeration;
Showing relationship among categories; and
Using diagrams to summarise relationships (Schulze, Myburg and Poggenpoel,
2005:65).
1.4.2.4 TRUSTWORTHINESS
According to Schulze, Myburg and Poggenpoel (2005:15), Goba’s model for
trustworthiness addresses ways for warding off biases in the results of qualitative
analysis. Within this model the following strategies are used to ensure trustworthiness:
Credibility (truth value): the research will be conducted in such a way that
research phenomena will be accurately described; and
Transferability: the research design will be adequately described so that other
researchers may use the study to extend findings to other studies.
1.5 DEMARCATION OF THE RESEARCH
The study will be conducted in six secondary schools out of the hundred and twenty two
schools in the Matlosana Area Project Office. Principals, heads of departments in schools
and educators will be interviewed using focus group interviews in the six selected
schools. The research will be limited to the investigation of DA implementation within
the IQMS in the Matlosana APO schools only.
6
1.6 CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS
Developmental Appraisal
Appraisal is defined by Hunt (1992:10), as a structured interview that requires
communication between the organisation (appraiser) and the employee (appraisee) to
make assessment about the future.
Developmental Appraisal according to (ELRC, 1998:9) is a process that develops both
the skills and career prospects of the individual educator and leads to improvement at
school or institutional level.
In this study Developmental Appraisal refers to an evaluation system to identify strengths
and weaknesses of educators in a transparent manner with the purpose of developing
educators to provide quality education and education management.
Implementation
According to Hornby (1986:426), implementation means how something is carried out,
or how to put something into effect, or to provide a plan or procedure to do something.
In this study implementation means the way in which the processes of DA as a
component of IQMS are being carried out in the Matlosana APO schools.
Matlosana Area Project Office
Matlosana refers to the Municipality in the Dr Kenneth Kaunda District of the North
West Province. The municipality covers the following towns: Klerksdorp, Orkney,
Stilfontein and Hartebeesfontein.
Area Project Office (APO) refers to an area demarcated for the purposes of managing
educational institutions in the North West Province. Each Area Project Office is divided
into schools. Each APO is headed by an APO Manager.
7
The Matlosana Area Project Office in this study refers to an area demarcated for
education management purposes in the Dr Kenneth Kaunda District of North West
Province. It covers the following towns and their surrounding farms: Klerksdorp, Orkney,
Stilfontein and Hartebeesfontein.
Perception
Langenbach, Vaugh and Aagaard (1994:117), define perception as the art of linking what
is sensed with some past experience to give the sensation meaning.
In this study perception refers to educators’ understanding of how DA is being
implemented within the IQMS.
1.7 DIVISION OF CHAPTERS
Chapter one provides the introduction and background, problem statement, research aims
and objectives, the method that will be used, demarcation of the study and division of
chapters.
Chapter two will deal with the literature review concerning the effectiveness of DA
implementation.
Chapter three will outline the methodology used by the researcher during data collection
period. The methodology will be based on the following aspects: the purpose of
qualitative research; the design of interview questions; the selection of respondents; and
the interviews of the focus groups.
Chapter four will deal with the analysis and the trustworthiness of the data collected.
Chapter five will provide the interpretation of the findings, recommendations and
conclusion.
8
1.8 CONCLUSION
In this chapter an introduction and background of the research, the aims of the research,
methods of the research, demarcation of research, the clarification of concepts and the
division of the study chapters were presented.
The next chapter will examine the relevant literature on Developmental Appraisal.
9
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Schulze, Myburg and Poggenpoel (2005:21) define Literature Review as a method of
acquiring information. They further define literature review as a systematic, critical
analysis and summary of existing literature relevant to the current research topic. It
involves reading an appropriate portion of voluminous literature that is available.
Literature review, according to Shank and Brown (2007:17) is used to tell us what is
already known. A view of the literature serves several purposes in research. The
knowledge gained from the literature aids in stating the significance of the problem,
developing the research design and relating the results of the study to prior knowledge
(McMillan and Schumacher, 2006:105).
Schulze, Myburg and Poggenpoel (2005:21) and McMillan and Schumacher (2006:105)
identify the following purposes of literature review, to:
define and limit the problem;
place the study in a historical perspective;
avoid unintentional and unnecessary replication;
select promising methods and measures;
relate the findings to previous knowledge and suggest further research;
develop research hypotheses;
develop clear research design;
sharpen and deepen the theoretical framework of the research;
clarify the relationship between the proposed study and previous work on the
topic;
identify gaps in knowledge, as well as weaknesses in previous studies, so that you
will be able to add to existing knowledge and introduce new ideas and
perspectives;
10
develop an acceptable body of knowledge on a topic and gain further insight into
the topic; and
identify variables that must be considered in research.
The focus of this chapter will be literature review on the Implementation of
Developmental Appraisal in Schools in the Matlosana Area Project Office. The
researcher hopes that this literature study will shed some light on the effective
implementation of Developmental Appraisal in Schools. It is however imperative to
discuss Staff Appraisal in general to have a broader understanding of Appraisal before
discussing the Implementation of Developmental Appraisal in schools.
2.2.1 PERSONNEL/STAFF APPRAISAL
Fiddler and Cooper (1992:29), Revil (1992:12) and Myland (1992:9) define Personnel or
Staff Appraisal as the process by which an employee and his or her superordinate meet at
regular intervals to discuss the performance issues, example, progress, development
needs, performance and potential of the appraisee. The employee and his or her employer
then agree on what action needs to be taken by both the employee and the employer to
benefit both the individual employee and the organisation or institution. The employee
will be able to perform well and the organisation will get quality products. Roberts
(1994:1) on the other hand believes that personnel appraisal is a system of human
resource management that is designed to enhance employee effectiveness.
Personnel or staff appraisal is also described by Poster and Poster (1991:1) as a means of
promoting through the use of certain techniques and procedures, the organisation’s ability
to accomplish its mission of maintaining or improving what it provides while at the same
time seeking to maintain or enhance staff satisfaction and development. They maintain
that for employees in any concern to perform effectively, they must be well motivated,
have a sound understanding of what is expected of them, have a sense of ownership and
possess the abilities they are charged with. For employees to achieve these personnel or
staff appraisal should provide accurate, complete and fair evaluations of each person’s
11
performance and provide information useful to both the organisation and the individual
(Fidler and Cooper, 1992:2) and (Murphy and Cleveland, 1995:379).
Thomas and Patten (1982:28) on the other hand argue that the information that is
provided cannot always be measured objectively by a person evaluating the employee for
the purpose of appraisal. This suggests that an effective staff appraisal method is needed
to ensure objectivity and fairness in identifying developmental needs of employees.
A related definition of the above is provided by Poster in Ngwenya (2006:35) as the
process by which key results areas or targets are jointly planned by the appraisee and the
appraiser in a collaborative manner.
Thomas and Patten (1982:28) strongly emphasise this when they suggest that the
appraiser should be able to coach the appraisee on how to do better, or take action
regarding people who have reached plateaus or decline in performances. Personnel or
staff appraisal is also there to measure and evaluate an individual’s behaviour and
accomplishment, as pointed out by Devries, Morrison, Shulman and Gerlach (1981:1).
This suggests that weaknesses and strengths are identified. Weaknesses are addressed
through development and mentoring and strengths improved upon through self-
development. Johannsen and Page in Ngwenya (2006:1) make the point that this is
important for measuring up the institution’s goal for promotion, salary review, personal
decisions and termination of services.
The above suggests that both the employee and employer will benefit. The employee will
benefit when salary and promotion are reviewed and the employer will benefit when
those who cannot perform their services are terminated.
Litheko (2001:22) further describes staff appraisal as a means of knowing what existed in
the past, what exists now and how that can be modified or changed in the future so that it
has a positive impact on change, performances, productivity, professional growth and
commitment. Philip (1990:22) further makes the point that, appraisal involves knowing
12
the goals and objectives of appraisal, being aware of resources, people, materials, funds
and enriched staff development opportunities. A related argument is made by Talor in
Monyatsi (2006:216) that appraisal involves letting people know what is required and
expected of them, assessing how they are doing, reviewing this with them regularly and
agreeing with them on what happens next.
Monyatsi (2006: 217) contends that appraisal is one way in which to review the
performance and potential of staff. An effective appraisal scheme therefore offers a
number of potential benefits to both the individual and organisation. These benefits are
the:
Identification of individual’s strengths and weaknesses;
Identification of problems which may be restricting progress and causing
inefficient work practices;
Development of a greater degree of consistency through regular feedback on
performance and discussion about potential which encourages better
performance from staff;
Provision of information for human resource planning to assist succession
planning and determine suitability for promotion and for particular types of
employment and training;
Improvement of communication by giving staff the opportunity to talk about
their ideas and expectations and how well they are progressing; and
Improvement of quality of working life by increasing mutual understanding
between manager and their staff.
Performance appraisal should therefore be viewed as one of those processes in
organisations that aim at enhancing productivity through mutual interaction between the
supervisor and the subordinate. The feedback provided during the appraisal process is
vital in informing all those involved in the organisation about what ought to be done in
order to map the way forward (Monyatsi, 2006:17).
13
Mercer (2006:17) further makes the point that an appraisal system provides a useful
window through which to examine the individual and the organisation’s performance.
This means that for any organisation to function effectively appraisal of staff is
important. The individual benefits through the development of weaknesses and the
organisation benefits through staff producing quality products.
In schools in South Africa Integrated Quality Management (IQMS) is used to evaluate
educators. In this IQMS there are three programmes: The Developmental Appraisal
(DA), Performance Measurement (PM) and Whole School Evaluation (WSE).
Because the focus of this study is the implementation of DA within the IQMS in schools,
the discussion of what developmental appraisal is, and how it is implemented in South
Africa and other countries, is necessary.
2.2.2 DEVELOPMENTAL APPRAISAL (DA)
Jones (1993:4) and Bartlett (2000:27) define developmental appraisal as a continuous and
systematic process intended to help individual teachers with their professional
development and career planning and to help ensure that in-service training and
deployment of teachers match the complementary needs of teachers and schools. A
related definition is provided by Revil (1992:120) as a systematic and two- way process
where the resource manager and individual member of staff come together at regular
intervals to discuss and assess openly and jointly, a member of staff’s progress,
development needs, performance and potential.
Both these definitions emphasise a continuous process that seeks to identify
developmental needs of an individual educator and to act on those identified needs.
Developmental appraisal therefore constitutes a professional needs analysis by the
appraisee and his or her Development Support Group (DSG). The needs are identified
through the use of Appraisal Interviews and Observation of educator practising in the
classroom or outside the classroom. The appraiser and appraisee use the performance
standards and criteria agreed upon by the educator and his or her appraisers. Thereafter
14
professional development occurs when the identified needs are matched with the
appropriate in-service training and development of the appraisee (Hartley, 1992:1).
This development of the identified needs will then, according to Campbell (2003:356),
lead to accountability which is facing two ways: from individual teachers to perform
duties effectively, and from the school management to support the individual teacher.
Appraisal therefore becomes an essential ingredient of school development. It provides a
framework to identify teacher’s strengths and weaknesses, and facilitate the identification
of personal professional development plans within the broader aim of the school
development (Declerq, 2008:11).
DA also according to Revil (1992:120) provides an opportunity to undertake an overall
review of performance, work content, load and quality, to look back on what has been
achieved during a previous period, to identify strengths which might be remedied, and to
negotiate and agree on a plan of action for the next period.
Quinlan (2005:1) further describes DA as a learning instrument designed to
diagnose faults;
build strengths and correct weaknesses;
inform teachers about how they are doing;
set targets for teachers to aim at; and
bring home to teachers the basic requirements of good teaching.
Bartlet (2000:28) believes that developmental appraisal is a natural and essential element
in the management of any professional staff. Teachers need to be carefully and
sensitively managed; they need help in remedying weaknesses; and recognition and
encouragement for their strengths. And they need to have confidence in the fairness and
consistency of the process.
Mercer (2006:18) on the other hand contends that appraisal ought to improve learning or
teaching. Improving the quality of the learning process should be essential in the
15
objectives of the appraisal of teachers. Mortimore and Mortimore as quoted by Mercer
(2006:18), argue that appraisal ought to have an impact on the quality of student learning
as well as the organisation skills, planning, and teamwork of the school staff. Appraisal is
therefore essential for teacher accountability.
It means that DA does not only look for faults, but also helps the educator to correct those
faults and be able to perform better next time. This also means that both the institution
and the educator benefit from this development.
Hancock and Settle (1990:20) and Bennette (1992:3) have identified the following phases
of implementing DA:
Self-appraisal. This is done on a regular basis. It is good for self-development and
for the encouragement of personal growth. It also means that the responsibility is
placed upon the individual to establish long-term and short-term goals for
development;
External appraisal. It is normally performed by teacher managers or external
management officials. It is used to support the teacher by assisting him or her on
setting of objectives and in providing responsibility for individuals to develop
herself or himself, to encourage the educator to be accountable for her or his own
work, to gain the commitment from the teacher which will tempt her or him away
from possible position of either self-satisfaction or work avoidance, especially
where there are tasks which are disliked; and
Group appraisal. A team which is constantly involved with the teacher does the
group appraisal. After appraising the teacher, she or he must be able to answer the
following questions:
Can I evaluate accurately the quality or otherwise of my work performance?
Can I match my skills appropriately to the different aspects of the job?
Do I recognise my own present and future training needs?
Am I able to select a career path appropriately?
Do I feel more motivated to do my job?
16
This suggests that for DA to be effective there must be commitment from the individual
and the commitment from those providing the educator with development support.
Appraisal is also implemented differently by different countries. A brief discussion of
how DA is implemented and the purpose of DA implementation in some countries will be
presented below.
In New Zealand and the UK, developmental appraisal, according to Tomlison
(2003:220), has purposes for individual, personally and professionally with links to team
performance within the school. In secondary schools, the team rather than the school is
the level at which differential performance is often focused. As the centre of attention
about performance moves to whole school and the wider education system, the emphasis
transfers to accountability.
In the US they use self-assessment, action research and peer coaching. The most
ambitious challenge for this is for leaders to become authentic members of learning
communities where they facilitate inquiry-based collaborative work.
In Singapore the process is clearly bureaucratic, but appears to have been insensitive to
the quality of current performance and is perceived as based on non-transparent criteria
(Tomlison, 2003:222).
Monyatsi (2006:225) describes the process of developmental appraisal in Botswana, as a
process intended as a means of achieving accountability, although it had developmental
tenets as well. Many teachers view the current teacher appraisal in Botswana as
demoralising, even threatening. Evidently, Botswana’s teacher appraisal policy ideals
(non-disciplinary, accurate, open, base on proper training, part of continuous support and
staff development) are not sufficiently met in practice, therefore endangering the
relevance, accountability and quality of educational provision, according to the findings
of Monyatsi (2006:225).
17
In Britain, according to Bartlet (2000:29), appraisal for every teacher takes place on a
two-yearly cycle. By law each appraisal cycle should consist of observation of teaching,
an appraisal interview which resulted in an appraisal statement with targets, and a review
meeting. Thus self-appraisal, an initial appraisal meeting and other forms of information
gathering were incorporated into the cycle. An appraisal system could be seen as a
vehicle for personal professional development and also as monitoring teachers.
Since the focus of this study is developmental appraisal in schools in the Matlosana Area
Project Office of the North West Province in South Africa, detailed presentation of how
DA is implemented in South African schools, is necessary. The implementation is clearly
described in the Integrated Quality Management System Training Material document,
(ELRC, 2003:1-5). According to this document the purpose of DA is to appraise
individual educators in a transparent manner with a view to determining areas of strength
and weakness, and to draw up programmes for individual development. The strengths and
weaknesses are determined using the evaluation instrument.
The instrument is divided into two parts. One part (made up of four Performance
Standards) is for observation of educators in practice in the classroom and the other part
(made up of eight Performance Standards) is related to aspects for evaluation that falls
outside of the classroom. The first four Performance Standards are:
The creation of a positive learning environment;
Knowledge of curriculum and learning programme;
Lesson planning, preparation and presentation; and
Learner assessment.
Each of the above Performance Standards asks a question:
Does the educator create a suitable environment for teaching and learning?
Does the educator demonstrate adequate knowledge of learning area and does she
or he use this knowledge effectively to create meaningful experiences for
learners?
18
Is lesson planning clear, logical and sequential, and is there evidence that an
individual lesson fits into a broader learning programme?
Is assessment used to promote teaching and learning?
It means that it is of the utmost importance for both the appraiser and the appraisee to
understand these performance standards to be able to answer questions asked in each
performance standard accurately and correctly. This will also help the appraiser and the
appraisee to diagnose the developmental needs of the appraisee.
Each performance standard also includes a number of criteria. For each of these criteria
there are four descriptors which are derived from the four rating scales (ELRC, 2003:1)
and (Declerq, 2008:12). The descriptors will therefore describe what the educator needs
to do to improve his or her performance on that particular performance standard.
The other part of the instrument is made up of the following Performance Standards:
Professional development in the field of work or career and participation in
professional bodies;
Human relations and contribution to school development;
Extra-curricular and co-curricular participation;
Administration of resources and records;
Personnel;
Decision making and accountability;
Leadership, communication and serving the governing body; and
Strategic planning, financial planning and Education Management and
Development (EMD).
Each one of these Performance Standards also asked the following Questions:
Does the educator participate in activities, which foster professional growth?
Does the educator demonstrate respect, interest and consideration for those with
whom she or he interacts?
Is the educator involved in extra- and co-curricular activities?
19
Does the educator use resources effectively and efficiently?
Does the educator manage and develop personnel in a way that the vision and
mission of the institution are accomplished?
Does the educator display sound decision making skills and does she or he take
responsibility for decision made?
Is she or he a visionary leader who builds commitment and confidence in staff
members?
Is the educator proficient in planning an education management development
(ELRC, 2003:3)?
The following rating scales are used when the performance of the educator is rated for the
purpose of development and performance measurements:
Rating 1: Unacceptable. This level of performance does not meet expectations and
requires urgent intervention and support. It means that the educators need the
support of the Development Support Groups to develop those areas needing
development;
Rating 2: Satisfies minimum expectations. This level of performance is acceptable
and is in line with minimum expectations, but development and support are
required;
Rating 3: Good. Performance is good and meets expectations, but some areas are
still in need of development and support; and
Rating 4: Outstanding. Performance is outstanding and exceeds expectations.
Although performance is excellent, continuous self-development and
improvement are advised (ELRC, 2003:4).
It is the educator’s Development Support Group (DSG) together with the educator herself
or himself who have to accurately rate the educator. This suggests that honesty and
fairness need to prevail. The educator needs to be fair in order to be able to identify his or
her weaknesses. The DSG is also supposed to be honest and fair for the sake of helping
the educator to develop and also for performance measure that may affect the educator’s
pay.
20
Performance standards one (1) to seven (7) apply to all post level one educators.
Performance standards one (1) to ten (10) apply to post level two educators (HODs) or
Education Specialists. Performance standards one (1) to twelve (12) apply to post level
three and four educators (Deputy Principals and Principals) (ELRC, 2003:5).
Because the focus of this study is the implementation of developmental appraisal in
schools, it is therefore important to discuss the processes involved when DA is
implemented in schools, but before discussing the processes it is necessary to clarify the
roles and responsibilities of people tasked with implementation of DA within the IQMS
in schools and the Area Project Office or the District Office.
2.3.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICIALS TASKED WITH THE
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL APPRAISAL (DA)
The following are the officials who are responsible for the implementation of DA within
the IQMS in schools:
2.3.1.1 The Principal
The principal has overall responsibility to ensure that the IQMS is implemented
uniformly and effectively at the school. The principal must ensure that every educator is
provided with a copy of the training material for IQMS and other relevant IQMS
documentation. Together with the School Management Team (SMT) and Staff
Development Team (SDT) he is responsible for advocacy and training at school level.
After advocacy and training the principal will facilitate the establishment of the SDT in a
democratic manner. She or he must ensure that all documentations sent to the Area Office
are correct and delivered in time. She or he is responsible for internal moderation of
evaluation results in order to ensure fairness and consistency (ELRC, 2003:2).
This suggests that the principal should be well informed as far as the processes of
implementing developmental appraisal are concerned to ensure the effective
implementation. The principal must also be able to be a leader who will always monitor
21
and encourage the SDT to perform its important duties correctly and efficiently as the
most important structure in the implementation of DA at the school level.
2.3.1.2 The Educator
The Educator must undertake self-evaluation of her or his performance. She or he must
identify her or his personal support Group- Development Support Group (DSG). The
educator must develop a Personal Growth Plan (PGP) and finalise it together with the
DSG. She or he must co-operate with the DSG. She or he must attend in-service training
and other programmes in terms of areas identified for development. She or he must
engage in feedback and discussion with the DSG (ELRC, 2003:2).
This means that the educator must fully understand the appraisal instrument to be able to
evaluate himself or herself and be in the position to objectively and fairly identify
weaknesses for purpose of development. The educator must also select the DSG that will
be in the position to help him or her develop in identified weaknesses.
2.3.1.3 School Management Team (SMT)
SMTs inform educators of in-service training and other programmes that will be offered
and make the necessary arrangements for educators to attend. They must assist with the
broad planning and implementation of IQMS. They must ensure that school self-
evaluation is done in terms of Whole School Evaluation (WSE) policy and in
collaboration with the Staff Development Team (SDT) (ELRC, 2003:3).
This suggests that the School Management Team need to play a vital role in ensuring that
educators receive training on the identified weaknesses and provide guidance and
mentoring. As senior in the DSG the SMT member should also ensure that the correct
procedures are followed in the implementation of DA.
22
2.3.1.4 Staff Development Team (SDT)
i. Composition
The Staff Development Team is made up of the principal, the Whole School Evaluation
co-ordinator, democratically elected members of the School Management Team and
democratically elected post level one educators. The school should decide on the size of
the SDT. It is suggested that members be up to about six depending on the size of the
school. In schools with only one or two educators such educators make up the SDT, but
the Area Project Office provides the support. How they provide this support is however
not clear in the IQMS training material document.
ii. Roles and Responsibilities
Ensures that all staff members are trained on the procedures and processes of the
IQMS;
Coordinates all activities pertaining to staff development;
Prepares and monitors the management plan for the IQMS;
Facilitates and gives guidance on how DSGs have to be established;
Prepares a final schedule of DSG members;
Links Developmental Appraisal to the School Improvement Plan (SIP);
Liaises with the department in respect of high priority needs such as in-service
training, short courses, skills programmes or learner ships;
Monitors effectiveness of the IQMS and reports to the relevant persons;
Ensures that all records and documentations on IQMS are maintained;
Oversees mentoring and support by the DSGs;
Develops the school improvement plan based on information gathered during
Developmental Appraisal;
Coordinates ongoing support provided during the two developmental cycles each
year;
Completes the necessary documentation for Performance Measurement (PM) for
pay or grade progression, signs off on these to ensure fairness and accuracy;
Submits all the necessary documentation (e.g. SIP) to the Area Project Office in
good time for data capturing;
23
Deals with the differences between appraisees and appraisers in order to resolve
the differences;
Coordinates the internal WSE processes;
Ensures that the IQMS is applied consistently; and
Liaises with the external WSE Team to coordinate and manage the cyclical
external WSE process (ELRC, 2003:3).
2.3.1.5 Development Support Group (DSG)
I. Composition
For each educator the DSG should consist of the educator’s immediate senior and one
other educator (peer). An educator’s peer must be selected by the educator on basis of
expertise that is related to the prioritised needs of the educator. It is important that the
peer has the confidence and trust of the educator as he or she will have to offer
constructive criticism as well as support and guidance. Only in exceptional cases, e.g. in
the case of a principal, may a peer be selected from the staff of another school. In some
instances it is possible for an educator to select more than one peer based on her or his
particular needs. In respect of one educator schools the Area Office provides the support
and mentoring. Each educator may have different DSG while some individual (e.g.
HODs or Education Specialists) will be involved in several DSGs (for different
educators). Once educators have determined who their DSGs are, this information has to
be factored in the broad planning of the SDT to ensure that there are no clashes with
HODs or Education Specialists having to evaluate different teachers at the same time and
to ensure a reasonable spread and pace of work for evaluators towards the end of the
year. A member of the DSG may be changed in instances where development has already
taken place and where new priorities have been identified (ELRC, 2003:5).
II. Roles and Responsibilities
The main purpose of the DSG is to provide mentoring and support;
The DSG is responsible for assisting the educator in the development and
refinement of her or his Personal Growth Plan (PGP) and to work with the
24
SDT to incorporate plans for development of an educator into the school
improvement plan;
The DSG is responsible for the baseline evaluation of the educator (for
Development purposes) as well as the summative evaluation at the end of the
year for Performance Measurement; and
The DSG must verify that the information provided for Performance
Measurement (PM) is accurate (ELRC, 2003:5).
This suggests that the educator needs to make sure that he or she selects the Development
Support Group that will be able to carry out the roles and responsibilities mention above.
2.3.1.6 The Area Office
The Area Office has the following roles and responsibilities in the implementation of
developmental appraisal within the IQMS in schools:
Overall responsibility of advocacy, training and proper implementation of IQMS;
Responsibility with regard to the development and arrangement of professional
development programmes in accordance with identified needs of educators and its
own improvement plan;
The area manager has the responsibility to moderate evaluation results of schools
in her or his area in order to ensure consistency. In cases where the evaluation
results of a school’s general level of performance or where the area manager has
reasons to believe that the evaluation at a particular school was either too strict or
too lenient, she or he must refer the results back to the school for consideration;
Must ensure that the evaluation results of schools are captured and processed in
time to ensure successful implementation of salary and grade progression; and
Should ensure that the implementation process in schools is monitored on an
ongoing basis (ELRC, 2003:6).
This means that the departmental officials on IQMS need to visit schools regularly to
ensure that IQMS is implemented correctly and effectively. The officials should also be
in a position to provide support on identified weaknesses of the educators.
25
The officials tasked with the implementation of Developmental Appraisal need to follow
certain procedures and processes. Those processes are discussed in the next section of
this chapter.
2.3.2 THE PROCESSES OF IMPLEMENTING DEVELOPMENTAL APPRAISAL
According to the ELRC (2003:6-10) document, the following processes are to be
followed when the developmental appraisal within the IQMS is implemented:
2.3.2.1 Planning
IQMS planning by the Staff Development Team (SDT) must incorporate all the processes
together with time frames in which they are to be completed, as well as all individuals
involved together with each one’s responsibility. Planning must take the school’s year
plan into account (which is drawn up by the School Management Team). The schools
must factor in to their broad planning the cycles of evaluation and development, e.g.
Baseline Evaluation in the first term, Summative Evaluation in the last term, first
developmental cycle from end of March to end of June and second developmental cycle
end of June to end of September. Secondary schools must ensure that educators who
teach Grade 9 or Grade 12 classes are evaluated before the external assessments or
examinations commence. By the end of February educators must be provided with a
timetable indicating when they can be evaluated. The principal calls a general staff
meeting at the beginning of the year at which educators are apprised of the IQMS
procedures and processes (ELRC, 2003:6).
The above planning suggests that each school should have a functional and effective SDT
which must plan its activities in conjunction with the SMT. The SDT must also get the
support from the SMT and the Area Office to carry out its duties effectively and
qualitatively.
2.3.2.2 Self-Evaluation by the Educator
Immediately after the initial advocacy and training, each educator should evaluate her or
himself using the same instrument that will be used for both Developmental Appraisal
26
and Performance Measurement. This enables the educator to become familiar with the
evaluation instrument. Educators familiarise themselves with the Performance Standards,
the Criteria (what they are expected to do) as well as the level of performance (how they
are expected to perform) in order to meet at least the minimum requirements for pay
progression. The self-evaluation forms part of both Developmental Appraisal (DA) and
Performance Measurement (PM) (ELRC, 2003:7). The emphasis of self-evaluation serves
the following purposes:
The educator is compelled to reflect critically on her or his performance and set
own targets and timetable for improvement;
Evaluation, through self-evaluation, becomes an ongoing process;
The educator is able to make inputs when the observation (for evaluation
purpose) takes place and this process becomes more participatory; and
The educator is able to measure progress and successes and build on these
without becoming dependent on cyclical evaluation (ELRC, 2003:7) and
(Declerq, 2008:12).
The self-evaluation of the educator plays a vital role on the process of developmental
appraisal because the educator is the one who needs to know exactly what it is, that
which he or she is lacking for development. This also suggests that honesty on the part of
the educator is needed if the educator wants to be developed on the areas needing
development.
2.3.2.3 Pre-evaluation Discussion
Each DSG must have a pre-evaluation discussion with the educator concerned during
which the following must be clarified:
Whether the educator understands what is expected of her or him in terms of the
various performance standards and criteria and how she or he will be rated;
The educator is given the opportunity to clarify his or her areas of concern;
The DSG informs the educator about procedures and processes that will be
followed throughout the IQMS cycle;
27
The DSG explains to the educator that lesson observation involves performance
standards one to four whilst other aspects involve the remaining performance
standards;
The DSG explains to the educator that the evaluation in respect of the remaining
performance standards will be based on general ongoing observation by the DSG
and on documentary evidence and other information that the educator may
provide to the DSG;
Guidance is provided to the educator on the development of her or his Personal
Growth Plan (PGP). After the baseline evaluation further discussions on the
development of the PGP need to take place; and
The educator is also given an opportunity to raise issues that are hampering her or
his performance. This is important in the light of the contextual factors, which
may be recorded in the report and considered for possible adjustment of the marks
awarded in respect of a particular criterion (ELRC, 2003:7-8).
The pre-evaluation discussion plays an important role since all issues of concern can be
discussed and clarified here to avoid misunderstandings. The DSG is also able to explain
to the educator their expectations of the educator.
2.3.2.4 Lesson Observation
After identifying the personal DSG the educator needs to be evaluated, for the purpose of
determining a baseline evaluation with which subsequent evaluation(s) can be compared
in order to determine progress. This evaluation should be done by both members of DSG.
The purpose of this evaluation by the DSG is
to confirm (or otherwise) the educator’s perception of his or her own
performance as arrived at through the process of self-evaluation;
to enable discussion around strengths and areas in need of development and to
reach consensus on the scores for individual criteria under each of the
Performance Standards and to resolve any differences of opinion that may
exist;
28
to provide the opportunity for constructive engagement around what the
educator needs to do for himself or herself, what needs to be done by the school
in terms of mentoring and support (especially by the DSG) and what INSET
and other programmes need to be provided by, for example, the Area Office;
to enable the DSG and the educator (together) to develop a PGP which includes
targets and time frames for improvement. The PGP must primarily be
developed by the educator with refinements being done by the DSG; and
to provide a basis for comparison with the evaluation for PM purposes which is
carried out at the end of the year (ELRC, 2003:8).
The above purposes suggest that lesson observation plays an important role as far as
diagnosing the educator’s developmental needs is concerned. Lesson observations also
help in performance measurement for pay progression. This suggests that honesty is
needed on the part of the educator, but also tension might arise because of pay related
performance.
2.3.2.5 Evaluation In Respect of Other Performance Standards
An educator’s evaluation in respect to these performance standards is based on general
ongoing observation, discussion and feedback by the DSG, submission of documentary
evidence, proof of participation and other information provided by the educator (ELRC,
2003:9).
It means that once an educator has established the DSG, the DSG must always observe
the educator to ensure that they are in the position to evaluate him or her accurately and
fairly in order for him or her to develop in the identified weaknesses.
2.3.2.6 Feedback and Discussion
The DSG must discuss their evaluation with the educator and must provide feedback.
Differences (if any) need to be resolved. Feedback on observation should focus on:
Performance and not personality;
Observations and not assumptions;
29
Objectivity and not subjectivity;
The specific and concrete and not the general and the abstract;
Sharing information and not giving instructions;
The individual’s needs; and
A request from the individual (ELRC, 2003:8).
This means that honesty and fairness are needed from both the educator and the
Development Support Group.
2.3.2.7 Resolution of Differences and/or Grievances
Most differences of opinion between an educator and the DSG should be resolved at that
level. Where agreement cannot be reached the matter must be referred to the SDT within
a week. If there is still no resolution within five working days, either party may request a
formal review by the grievance committee. The grievance committee will make a
recommendation to the head of the provincial department. The head of department will
evaluate the recommendation and motivation submitted by the Grievance Committee
before taking a decision which shall be made within five working days (ELRC, 2003:9).
This resolution of differences is important because the educator and the DSG need to
agree on the identify weaknesses of the educator. This will enable the DSG to help the
educator to be developed on these weaknesses, to benefit the educator and the school.
2.3.2.8 Monitoring
The monitoring process is an ongoing activity, which is conducted by departmental
officials, SMTs and DSGs (ELRC, 2003:9). The purpose of this monitoring is to ensure
that the DA and other IQMS processes are carried out accurately and consistently by
schools.
Declerq (2008:13) criticises this monitoring citing problematic issues such as: the
awkward combination in one system of internal and external bureaucratic (with a
standardised appraisal instrument) and professional monitoring (with peer contextual
30
appraisal) for development and accountability which leads to inevitably to tensions; and
the poor leadership capacity, at district and school level, to effectively implement the
appraisal system, and to manage its inherent dilemmas.
2.3.2.9 Second and Subsequent Year of Implementation
The second and subsequent implementations of IQMS on a particular educator differ
from the first implementation in the following ways:
Teachers will need to be evaluated by their DSGs only once per annum;
The summative evaluation at the end of the previous year becomes the baseline
evaluation for the next year. It is therefore necessary to do only the summative
evaluation at the end of each year (for performance measurement) and to
compare this with the summative evaluation of the previous year in order to
determine progress; and
Only new teachers entering the system for the first time will need to be evaluated
at the beginning of the year (ELRC, 2003:10).
The above suggests that the processes of implementing Developmental Appraisal is a
huge task with many people involved and this means that it is not easy to implement it
without certain challenges that will be encountered. Therefore some of these challenges
that may be encountered during the implementation of developmental appraisal are
discussed in the next section of the chapter.
2.4.1 CHALLENGES ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL
APPRAISAL
According to Declerq (2008:13) there is an assumption in IQMS that a certain level of
professional competence, openness and respect towards colleagues exists among school
staff. Its form of internal peer appraisal assumes that most schools have a professional
collaborative climate and culture where staff work and reflect together on how to
improve teaching but this is not the case. Declerq (2008:13) further argues that research
done by Talor and Vinjevold has shown how unsatisfactory the professional
31
qualifications of many educators are, as well as their mastery of subject knowledge and
pedagogical knowledge. Research by Tailor also points out that poor culture of teaching
and learning subsists today in the majority of poorly functioning schools, and South
African learners’ achievements are among the lowest in the world for comparative
countries. According to Fleisch (2008:13), these poor results, influence educators’ values
and attitudes making them defensive towards any form of performance appraisal.
A related argument is given by Campbell (2003:357) when he says there may be tension
between collaboration with colleagues and performing effectively independently of
colleagues, especially if teacher appraisal is focussed exclusively on individual
performance. Some important values, such as commitment to enhancing all pupils to
realise their potential, either is not measurable or could only be measured in time scales
that are too long for purposes of appraisal.
SADTU (2002 &2005) argues that, it is unfair to hold educator accountable for effective
curriculum implementation and poor learner achievements. Both the difficult teaching
conditions and recent policies, which are beyond educators’ control, greatly influence
learners’ poor attitudes, low levels of interest and achievement. For these reasons, many
educators resist this formal appraisal process (and specifically its classroom visits), which
they see as unfair, inappropriate to their work circumstances, and more about
accountability than development. In many low-functioning schools, the process is seen as
a cumbersome, time-consuming and fruitless exercise, which does not bring any benefits
and is therefore not treated seriously (Wadvalla, 2005).
Another problem is the lack of capacity of educators’ monitoring which might develop
with training, expertise and moderation. The system requires authoritative evaluators,
capable of making data-informed professional judgements. They need to have an
understanding of how to uphold and raise evaluation standards, criteria, work with
techniques of observation, and develop effective diagnosis report. Yet, not many South
African schools have experienced effective internal appraisers and yet, according to
Newman and Ringdon in Declerq (2008:14) the experience of effective internal appraisal
32
is necessary for effective external accountability. The question remains whether the
system can develop the capacity to produce these knowledge well-trained professional
appraisers who have access to sufficient data information to interpret effectively the
appraisal instrument to reflect adequately on educators’ practices and areas of
development and compile meaningful PGPs?
There is also a problem in expecting appraisers to use one standardised instrument to
evaluate educators both for development and for reward or sanctions. An important
condition for effective developmental appraisal is that performance standards should be
contextual and negotiated with educators. The combination in one instrument of
monitoring for development and for performance management exacerbates the already
difficult power relationship between appraisees, school-based appraisers and district
appraisers. These parties have different interests and agendas in this evaluation, thus
threatening rigorous, reliable and valid evaluation (Declerq, 2008:14).
Shalem (2003:34) further argues that professional development programmes are
inadequate at providing meaningful opportunities for educators to learn. Most
programmes are top-down, departmental or NGO-driven, with little educator involvement
in their design and delivery. The school support capacity rarely exists in low-functioning
schools and is made worse by a tradition of poor collegiality and lack of respect among
staff in many schools. The department or district support capacity is also stretched by the
new OBE system because the majority of provincial or district officials are themselves
not familiar with OBE and the competences, values and culture required to implement it.
According to Narsee (2006:15), this inadequate district school support is likely to remain
in the future, because of lack of human, social and organisational capital. Declerq
(2008:15) also argues that contestations are likely to arise about what educators, versus
appraisers, identify as appropriate professional development priorities and support
opportunities.
According to Metcalf (2008) the different professional development needs of educators,
and the need to move them from where they are to where they have to be, require a
33
multipronged approach to professional development. This approach recognises that
curriculum and assessment policy implementation support is not always the most
important for educators, to acquire the basic subject and pedagogical content knowledge
to be in control of what to teach.
Gardiner (2004:23) on the other hand argues that the interests of the education system are
given significantly more weight than the needs of educators. For example the Personal
Growth Plan of the educator is to be integrated into the School Improvement Plan, the
Whole School Evaluation Policy and the Provincial Strategic Plan. The Province will
then determine the availability of resources, which courses and workshops are offered
and what teachers themselves are supported in doing.
The other problem in the IQMS according to Weber (2005:65) is the idea that the
Department of Education has the responsibility of providing facilities and resources to
support learning. This idea is however not clear, about what will be provided, how it will
be provided, who will monitor and evaluate the adequacy of the provision and efficacy of
development of human resources. In schools there are also no common goals set by
management for staff to follow. This does not encourage communal responsibility and
leads to some staff feeling alienated and isolated (Humphreys and Thomas, 1995:135).
Bartlett (2000:31) has also identified the following challenges in the implementation of
developmental appraisal:
Lack of rigour in the whole process which was shown by poor target setting, the
line manager not being the appraiser;
The process being too protected, not fitting into school training; and
Development plans and the two-yearly cycle being incongruous with
management planning.
According to Tomlison (2003:221), a link with pay also poses a potential problem in the
implementation of Developmental Appraisal, and it is undermining the professional
development supported by teachers. This also has the potential for exacerbating further
34
the tension that limits teachers’ confidence in appraisal. When judgements are made
about the quality of teachers’ performance, using it as a basis for competency procedures
for some teachers appear to undermine its value for the vast majority in relation to
professional development. He also argues that the bureaucratic processes undermine and
are insensitive to the professional development of the educators.
Mercer (2006:24) further makes the point that appraisal procedures in the US encourage
safe rather than creative, flexible teaching, focusing on highly specific competencies at
the expense of a more holistic assessment of a teacher’s overall contribution to the
institution. Wragg in Mercer (2006:24), similarly, suggests that competency-based
appraisal in UK ignores the need for imaginative and reflexive skills. Mercer (2006:24)
further makes the point that, the more teacher appraisal is concerned with managerial
control, the more quality will be defined in terms of minimal competencies, meaning, the
most generic of technical skills.
The above discussion means that certain measures need to be taken in order to correct or
deal with the challenges in the implementation of Developmental Appraisal. Therefore
the effective strategies of implementing Developmental Appraisal will be discussed
below.
2.4.2 EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES OF IMPLEMENTING DEVELOPMENTAL
APPRAISAL
According to Humphreys and Thomas (1995:138) Developmental Appraisal can be
effectively implemented when the following strategies are in place:
The involvement of several trusted colleagues in discussing an aspect of their
professional development allows each teacher to employ the collective wisdom
rather than merely depending on self-appraisal of their work, or one appraiser,
thus creating a context which enables teachers to collaborate in focussed manner
to enhance individual’s efforts at development;
The involvement of management in all sessions ensures a relationship between an
individual teacher’s professional development needs and school development
35
planning. Teachers’ in-service training needs to arise naturally from the project
rather than being prescribed in isolation by management;
The negotiated responsibility of approach avoids the extremes between models of
appraisal allowing teachers to choose their own focuses for appraisal and those
wherein the area of focus was prescribed by the head of department. This appears
to allow for both the individual’s professional development and the school
development; and
The involvement of an outsider allows an unbiased view not clouded by previous
experience of the school.
Myland(1992:14) expounds further on this when he makes the point that performance
appraisal should be seen by those involved as an opportunity for honest discussion. In
this discussion, the appraiser does not judge but promotes agreement about how current
performance matches up to requirements and how the future might be approached. The
record of appraisal interview should in fact be an agreed summary of discussion, from
which description of current performance and future action plan must be discernible.
Toch (2008:34) believes that using evaluators with backgrounds in candidates’ subjects
and grade levels strengthens the quality of appraisal.
The review of Developmental Appraisal in Britain by Bartlett (2000:31) proposed that
appraisal should be integrated with the other management processes and information
systems directed at school improvement. The appraisal process should address how well
teachers were performing and what would be needed to assist their future professional
development. Thus it should encourage, recognise and value good work whilst addressing
any weaknesses with suggestions for future action. Appraisal should be grounded in the
regular monitoring and improvement of teachers’ effectiveness in the classroom.
Transparency was to replace confidentiality. Roles should be clear, with performance
standards and success criteria stated. Targets should require teachers to focus sharply on
their effectiveness in the classroom taking account of findings or other key performance
indicators during the developmental appraisal evaluation report.
36
Bartlett (2000:32) also suggests that the structured discussion with individual line
manager should be conducted on an annual basis as part of the developmental appraisal
of educators. Declerq (2008:16) further makes the point that, a teacher appraisal system
should be based on valid or realistic assumptions about the specific teaching realities and
the available professional appraisal and support capacity in the system. It should engage
with the way teachers and departmental officials perceive teachers’ work and
responsibilities and strive towards reaching some basic consensus.
Monyatsi (2006:225) similarly makes the point that for developmental appraisal to reap
benefits the school should have an effective training strategy and mount professional
programmes where purposes and procedures are fully shared and explained to all
participants. The clarity of purpose plays a crucial role in making the process more
effective, especially if it is carried out formally. He also emphasises the importance of
transparency, trust, and honesty in the implementation of developmental appraisal at
schools. This should take place through professional collaboration between the appraisee
and appraiser, with regular meetings between the parties concerned to negotiate appraisal
purposes and outcomes. From these meetings, realistic targets that are within the job
description of the teacher should be discussed and agreed upon at each stage of the
appraisal process. It is also important that the teacher’s developmental appraisal process
should recognise teachers as full partners in the process, not as raw objects to be
developed by senior staff and experts (Monyatsi, 2006:226). The system also should be
flexible, designed by each school to meet its own needs (Barnard, 1999:1).
The above discussion suggests that the appraisal to be effective, certain measures need to
be put in place. It also means that contextual factors need to be taken into consideration
when developmental appraisal is implemented.
2.5 CONCLUSION
This chapter began with the definition of literature review and the purposes of reviewing
literature for the study. The definition of personnel or staff appraisal and how it was
implemented was also discussed for a broader understanding of appraisal before
37
discussing Developmental Appraisal (DA) as it is implemented in schools. The roles and
responsibilities of officials tasked with the implementation of DA, the processes involved
in the implementation and challenges in the implementation of Developmental Appraisal
were discussed before suggesting the effective strategies of implementing developmental
appraisal. The next chapter will describe the methodologies used for data collection,
analysis and interpretation.
38
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In the preceding chapter on literature review, the researcher examined literature on the
Implementation of Developmental Appraisal to narrow the topic into researchable
questions. The literature review has provided the researcher with a critical and synthesis
understanding of the topic of the study.
This chapter outlines detailed description of the research methodology that will be
followed to generate empirical evidence to answer the research questions in this study.
The chapter therefore will specifically describe research design, data collection methods,
sampling, data analysis, trustworthiness and ethical considerations.
The research design is therefore outlined on the next section of this chapter.
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
Bogdan and Biklen (2007:54), Ary, Jacobs, Razavieh and Sorensen (2006:470) and Ary,
Jacobs and Razavieh (2002:426), describe research design as the researcher’s plan of how
to proceed to gain an understanding of some group or some phenomenon in its natural
setting. In agreement with this description, McMillan and Schumacher (2001:172) say
that research design, describes how the study was conducted, it summarises the
procedures for conducting the study, including when, and under what condition the data
will be conducted.
The purpose of research design is presented by McMillan and Schumacher (2001:377) as
to
describe and explore;
describe and explain;
add to the literature;
39
build rich description of complex situation; and
give directions for future research.
The nature of this research is descriptive and explanatory. The suitable research design,
for this study is therefore, a qualitative research design. Qualitative research design is
described by McMillan and Schumacher (2001:395) as an inquiry in which researchers
collect data in face-to-face situations by interacting with selected persons in their setting.
Gay, Mills and Airasian (2006:399) on the other hand described qualitative research, as
the collection, analysis and interpretation of comprehensive narrative and visual data in
order to gain insights into a particular phenomenon of interest. Qualitative research is
preferred in this study because it describes and analyses people’s individual and
collective social actions, beliefs, thoughts, and perceptions (Ary et al., 2002:25). It is also
concerned with understanding the social phenomena from the participants’ perspective.
Understanding is acquired by analysing the many contexts of the participants’ meaning
for these situations and events (McMillan and Schumacher, 2001:396).
The qualitative research design is also preferred in the study because of the following
characteristics:
It shows concern for context;
It studies real-world behaviour as it occurs naturally;
The human investigator is the primary instrument for gathering and analysing
data; and
It deals with data that are in the form of words rather than numbers and statistics.
Focus group interview as a qualitative data collection tool will be used in this study. In
the next section of this chapter, the basis of using focus group interview is discussed in
detail.
40
3.3 DATA COLLECTION METHODS
According to Gay, Mills and Airasian (2006:413) data collection in qualitative studies,
involves spending time in the setting under study, immersing oneself in this setting, and
collecting as much relevant information as possible.
Observations, interviews, phone calls, personal and official documents, photographs,
recordings, journals, e-mail messages and responses, and informal conversations are all
sources of qualitative data (Gay et al., 2006:413). In this study focus group interview will
be employed as data collecting technique. The importance of using this technique is
expounded below.
3.3.1 Focus Group Interviews
Johnson and Christensen (2004:185), describe a focus group interview as a type of
interview in which a researcher leads discussion with a small group of individuals to
examine, in detail, how the group members think and feel about a topic. The focus group
interviews are much more flexible and open in form. The respondents are free to answer
in their own words and can answer either briefly or at length (Ary et al., 2006:482).
Bogdan and Biklen (2007:69) on the other hand maintain that focus group interviews are
structured to foster talk among the participants about particular issues.
The focus group interviews also have the following advantages:
They are more economical than conducting numerous individual interviews;
The group dynamics is synergistic factor in bringing information out;
Participants have more confidence in expressing their feelings honestly within a
support group of peer than in individual interviews (Schulze, Myburg and
Poggenpoel, 2005:69);
They are helpful because they bring several different perspectives into contact;
and
The researcher gains insight into how participants are thinking and why they are
thinking as they do (Ary et al., 2006:482).
41
Ary et al. (2006:482), Johnson and Christensen (2004:185) and Ary et al. (2002:434) all
agree that the number of participants in the focus group should be six to twelve people.
They contend that the group should be small enough that everyone can take part in the
discussion, but large enough to provide diversity in perspective. In addition, Johnson and
Christensen (2004:185) maintain that the conduct of two to four focus groups as part of a
single research study is quite common because it is unwise to rely on the information
provided by a single focus group.
In this study therefore, the researcher will establish six sets of focus groups for
interviews. There will be a separate focus group for each selected school in the area.
Each focus group will therefore consist of one principal, one head of department and
three educators.
Unstructured focus group interviews will be conducted in this study. Gay et al.
(2006:419) describe unstructured focus group interviews as little more than a casual
conversation that allows the qualitative researcher to inquire into something that has
presented itself as an opportunity to learn about what is going on at the research setting.
In addition to facilitating the focus group interviews in this study, the researcher will
tape-record the proceedings and make field notes with expressed permission of the
participants. The primary data of qualitative interviews are verbatim accounts of what
transpired in the interview session. Tape recording the interviews ensures completeness
of the interaction and provides material for reliability checks, while the need for taking
notes helps to reformulates data analysis. Neither note-taking nor tape-recording will
interfere with the researcher’s full attention on the person during focus group interview
sessions as emphasised by McMillan and Schumacher (2001:355).
The interview schedule will be discussed in the next section.
42
3.3.2 The Interview Schedule
According to Bogdan and Biklen (2003:70), the interview schedules are used primarily to
gather comparable data across sites. The interview schedules also allow for open-ended
responses and are flexible enough for the observer to note and collect data on unexpected
dimensions of the topic (Bogdan and Biklen, 2003:71). Therefore, for purpose of this
study, an interview schedule for principals, heads of departments and educators will be
carefully constructed, with the intention of permitting more latitude than in a structured
interview. The interview schedule for different respondents is presented in Appendix A.
Another important aspect of a research design is sampling which will be discussed in the
next section.
3.4 SAMPLING
The purposeful sampling method will be used in this study. According to McMillan and
Schumacher (2001:433), purposeful sampling is a strategy to choose small groups or
individuals likely to be knowledgeable and informative about phenomenon of interest. In
agreement with this, Ary et al. (2002:428) contend that purposeful sampling is sufficient
to provide maximum insight and understanding of what the researcher is studying. The
researcher uses his or her experience and knowledge to select a sample of participants
that he or she believes can provide the relevant information about the topic or setting. In
purposeful sampling (judgemental sampling), the researcher specifies the characteristics
of a population of interest and tries to locate individuals who have these characteristics.
Once the group is located, the researcher asks those who meet the inclusion criteria to
participate in the research study (Johnson and Christensen, 2004:215).
3.4.1 Site Selection
In this study the researcher will select six secondary schools from the thirty seven
secondary schools in the Matlosana Area Project Office. The schools will be selected
using their location as the basis for their selections. That is, whether a school is a
township or a town school. The schools are selected this way because, township schools
and town schools do not have the same development resources to develop the educators,
43
while the town schools have more resources for educator development, the township
schools have little or none. Therefore three schools will be selected from the township in
the Area and three from the town schools in the Area.
3.4.2 Participants Selection
The following participants will be selected based on the following reasons:
Six secondary school principals. In addition to their position as ex officio
members of the Staff Development Team (SDT), the researcher selected
principals because according to ELRC, Integrated Quality Management
document (2003:2), the principal has the overall responsibility to ensure that
the IQMS, of which Developmental Appraisal is part, is implemented
uniformly and effectively at the school;
Six heads of departments (HODs). Heads of departments are selected
because according to the ELRC, IQMS document (2003:3) they should
assist with the broad planning and implementation of IQMS; and
Eighteen educators. Three educators per school would be selected because
according to the ELRC, IQMS document (2003:2), educators have to attend
development programmes in terms of areas identified for development
during appraisal of their performance.
The researcher will visit the selected schools after the permission is granted by the
Department of Basic Education. At the schools the researcher will explain the purpose of
conducting the study and assure the educators that the findings of the study will be kept
confidential. With the help of the selected school’s principal, those educators who are
willing to participate will be selected.
In the next section of the chapter Analysis of data will be presented.
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS
In this study data will be collected by means of focus group interviews, from the
purposefully selected participants and sites. The interviews will be tape-recorded and
44
followed by verbatim transcription. According to Bogdan and Biklen (2003:147) data
analysis is a process of systematically searching and arranging the interview scripts, field
notes, and other materials that are accumulated to come up with findings. McMillan and
Schumacher (2001:461), describe the qualitative data analysis as inductive process of
organising the data into categories. Ary et al. (2006:490) on the other hand believe that
data analysis is the most complex and mysterious phase of qualitative research.
According to them it involves reducing and organising the data, synthesising, searching
for significant patterns and discovering what is important. The researcher organises what
he or she has seen, heard and read and tries to make sense of it in order to create
explanations, develop theories or pose new questions (Ary et al., 2006:490).
Schulze et al. (2005:15) believe that the aim of analysing and interpreting research data is
to increase the validity of research by ensuring that errors and inaccuracies are
eliminated.
Creswell (1998:148) presented five stages in data analysis as follows:
Creating and organising data;
Managing data by generating categories, themes and patterns;
Reading and memoing to form codes;
Describing, classifying and interpreting data; and
Representing and visualising (writing the report).
The researcher will employ Tech’s approach of data analysis as captured by Schulze et al.
(2005:15) to
get a sense of the whole by reading through all transcripts. Jot down ideas as they
come to mind;
write down thoughts about the meaning of each piece of information in the
margin;
make a list of all topics. Cluster similar topics together;
45
take the list and return to the data. Abbreviate topics by means of codes next to
each segment of data in the transcribed interview. See if new categories and
codes emerge;
form categories by grouping topics together. Determine relationships between
categories;
make a final decision on the abbreviation of categories and codes. Alphabetise
codes;
assemble all the data for each category in one place; and
recode existing data if necessary.
3.6 TRUSTWORTHINESS
The trustworthiness of qualitative research is based on rigour to assure the required
reliability and validity (Tobin & Begley, 2004:389-390 and Twycross & Shields,
2005:36). Rigour refers to integrity and competence in conducting the empirical research
by adhering to detail and accuracy to ensure the authenticity and trustworthiness of data,
findings and conclusions.
Trustworthiness, according to De Vos; Strydom; Fouche & Delport (2005:349), reveals
the truth value, applicability, consistency and neutrality of the research results as
discussed below:
3.6.1 Truth value
Truth value, according to De Vos et al. (2005:350), is the confidence that the researcher
has in the truth of the findings, based on the research design, the informants and context
in which the research was conducted. The truth value of this study will be obtained from
principals, HODs and educators in the Matlosana Area Project Office schools, who
willingly will participate and associate themselves with the aims of this study.
3.6.2 Applicability
De Vos et al. (2005:349), define the applicability of research findings as the degree to
which the findings of the study can be applied to other contexts and situations. Although
46
the focus of this study is based on schools in the Matlosana Area Project Office schools,
there are some generic aspects that are applicable to other school situations within the
education system because no school is an isolated entity in itself.
3.6.3 Consistency
Consistency refers to the reliability of research results if the research is conducted again
with the same participants or in a similar context (De Vos et al., 2005:350). Consistency
will be established by means of “audit trail” in the form of filed notes and tape recordings
that any external reviewer can access.
3.6.4 Neutrality
Neutrality of the study results refers to freedom from bias in the research procedures and
results. Neutrality will be ensured by the researcher who will be cautious and deliberately
not indicate or show any bias towards any aspect that will be part of the empirical section
of this study (De Vos et al., 2005:350).
The above-stated aspects related to trustworthiness of the research will be addressed by
the researcher in the following ways (De Vos et al., 2005:359):
Confidentiality will be assured; and
Questions will be asked in simple understandable language.
3.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Ary et al. (2002:50) maintain that when a qualitative researcher employs human beings as
subjects in research, extreme care must be taken to avoid any harm to them. This means
that the researcher has an obligation to respect the rights, needs, values, and desires of the
informants (Creswell, 1998:165).
In this study the researcher will observe the following research ethics:
Written permission will be asked from the Matlosana Area Project Office
manager, principals and school governing bodies of the selected secondary
schools to proceed with the study;
47
The researcher will approach the participants in person and communicate the
aims of the study to participants and assure them of confidentiality and
anonymity;
The participants will be informed of data collection devices and activities.
Permission will be asked to audiotape interviews so that the researcher can obtain
accurate information; and
The researcher will observe the rights of participants to remain anonymous and
their information be treated as confidential. These rights will be respected,
specifically, when no clear understanding to the contrary has been reached. In
compliance with this consideration, the researcher will employ stringent
measures to conceal the names of participants and those of the institutions to
which they are attached. Instead, pseudo- or code names will be used (Ary et al.,
2002:504).
3.8 CONCLUSION
In this chapter research methodology has been discussed in details. The following aspects
of the research method were explained: research design; data collection methods;
sampling; data analysis; trustworthiness and ethical consideration. The next chapter will
deal with data collection and analysis.
48
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The preceding chapter dealt with the research methodology and design that was used to
collect data in this study. This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of data
collected through the use of focus group interviews. This chapter also specifically deals
with the empirical findings to answer the main research question of this study. The main
question of the study is how developmental appraisal within the IQMS is being
implemented in the Matlosan Area Project Office schools.
4.2 BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF METHODOLOGY
The researcher collected data by means of focus group interviews in this study. Six focus
groups, from the six purposefully selected secondary schools in the Matlosana APO were
established. Each focus group comprised one principal, one head of department (HOD)
and three educators. The identity of the participants remained withheld throughout the
study for the purposes of confidentiality and anonymity. Instead, code names were used,
as captured in section 3.7 of this study.
The researcher used an interview schedule which served as useful guide during the focus
group interviews (c.f. Annexure A). All focus group interviews were conducted face-to-
face. The average interview took 20 minutes with a range from 15 minutes to 30 minutes.
A voice recorder was used to record the interviews for later use when doing the analysis
of the findings.
The researcher believes that the information collected represents what participants
experience in reality when they implement developmental appraisal in their respective
secondary schools. This is the main objective of this study, to understand the
effectiveness of developmental appraisal implementation from the educators’ own
perspectives.
49
In the next section of the study, the researcher focuses on the data analysis process.
4.3 DATA ANALYSIS PROCESS
Data collected by means of questionnaires, interviews, diaries or any other method mean
very little until they are analysed and evaluated. Raw data taken from questionnaires,
interview schedules, check lists and so on, need to be recorded, analysed and interpreted
(Bell, 2005:201). In this study data were collected through focus group interviews, the
voice recorder was used for verbatim transcription later on and to analyse the findings of
the research after data collection. The information from interviews would have meant
nothing if not interpreted and analysed (Bell, 2005:201).
According to Hittleman and Simon (2002:182), categorising and interpreting are to look
for similarities and differences, groupings, patterns and items of particular significance.
This involves examining and organising notes from interviews and reducing the
information into smaller segments from which patterns and trends can be seen. In this
study the findings of the research were categorised using questions in the interview
schedule as the main categories. The findings were further sub-divided into sub-
categories according to the participants’ responses.
Qualitative researchers begin their analysis while still in the research setting and finish it
after all data have been collected (Hittleman and Simon, 2002:182). In this study notes
were taken while busy with interviewing the participants for later analysis and
interpretation. The voice recordings were also transcribed immediately after the interview
while still fresh in the researcher’s mind. The findings were read thoroughly to have a
better comprehension of what was said before doing the analysis.
4.4 RESEARCH FINDINGS
The aim of conducting interviews was to examine teachers’ experiences regarding the
implementation of developmental appraisal within the IQMS in their respective
secondary schools. The researcher, in other words, wanted to know what teachers see as
taking place in the participating schools when implementing developmental appraisal.
50
With regard to data analysis, these findings were appropriately organised into categories
and sub-categories. The findings were organised in the form of categories based on the
theme derived from interview schedule. The following is the layout as derived from the
categories:
The processes of Developmental Appraisal within IQMS;
The roles of Staff Development Team in implementing DA;
The role of Area Project Office officials in implementing DA;
The effectiveness of SDTs and APO officials in implementing DA; and
Challenges on the implementation of DA.
The findings discussed were presented under each subheading in subsections that were
aligned to the relevant subcategories that emerged from the focus group interview data.
4.4.1 The processes of Developmental Appraisal within the IQMS
During data collection it was discovered that the participants have knowledge of some of
the processes of developmental appraisal. During the interviews in selected secondary
schools it was discovered that some similar ideas were expressed on what the processes
of developmental appraisal entail with that captured in the review of related literature in
this study although some processes were not known.
These processes were generated from the participants’ responses during the interview on
the processes of implementing developmental appraisal: planning; self-evaluation; pre-
evaluation discussions; lesson observation; feedback and discussion; resolution of
differences; and monitoring. The processes are presented in detail below:
4.4.1.1 Planning
The majority of participants believe that planning plays a major role in the effective
implementation of developmental appraisal within the IQMS. At the beginning of the
year, where the SDT is not in existence the staff had to elect the SDT. This is confirmed
by Principal C when stating that: “The idea is also to elect from within the staff that is the
principal and elected members by staff to form the development team”. By development
51
team the participant means the Staff Development Team (SDT). The planning on the
IQMS must incorporate all the processes and time frames, individuals involved and the
school plan into account. Teacher E 1 attests to this when explaining: “We have to
prepare first within the school how we are going to plan for that process of IQMS”. In
support of this HOD E responded: “The first step is where the SDT has to draw up their
plan from the information they gathered from the DSGs, the DSGs inform SDT when they
are going to sit or visit a person who is the appraisee”. The Staff Development Teams
also have to familiarise themselves with IQMS policy and workshop other educators,
especially, the new ones. On this idea Teacher D 1 said: “What we do is that we start off
with checking the policy, we start with that”. The planning for the year must be drawn by
the SDT together with School Management Team (SMT). The SDT also in their planning
they have to draw up the management plan that has to take the school plan into account.
This was confirmed by the response of HOD C: “SDT sit down and organise a
programme for the whole year to indicate the dates for the visits”. To elaborate further
on this HOD F said: “I think the first one is the school management plan, which we apply
on all activities that must be followed in terms of implementation process”. The
management plan must also indicate when the time table for the class visits will be
drawn. This point was made by Teacher F1 when stating that: Before IQMS starts, the
SDT should draw the time table so that everyone should know when to go to class”.
The above are in line with what was discovered in the literature review (c.f.2.3.2.1).
4.4.1.2 Lesson Observation
Data collected revealed that the majority of participants understand the important role the
class observation play during implementation of developmental appraisal. This fact is
confirmed by the response of the following respondents: Principal A said: “The two
teachers come to your class, look at your file, listen to your class as how you give class
and then they assess you”. To elaborate more on this Teacher C1said: “From there the
teacher perform. The teacher with expertise or the teacher who is knowledgeable on the
subject fills in his her space”. Teacher D1 further collaborated this when stating that:
“Then we go to class visit with the teacher and give the lesson”. HOD E also further
52
explains this when responding by saying: “The DSG inform the SDT when are they going
to sit or visit a person who is the appraisee”. In conclusion on this Principal F responded:
“When we meet the teacher in the classroom, the teacher must come with the peer”.
The above responses are in line with what was discovered in the literature review
(c.f.2.3.2.4).
4.4.1.3 Feedback and Discussion
The majority of participants were aware of the need to meet after lesson observation to
discuss issues related to the lesson observation. This fact is confirmed by a number of
responses of the participants. Principal A responded: “Then we have a meeting where we
discuss the marks you gave yourself and what the other two people gave you, so we
decide on the marks and then you have to fill in a form where you comment on the things
that bother you and on things why you gave yourself a three or two or whatever”. This is
supported by the response of Teacher B1: “After observing the lesson we call that
teacher, who was visited, and we discuss everything with that particular teacher, the
scores given to the teacher”. A related response was given by Teacher C1: “Thereafter
we meet again and collude the scores. We focus on those areas that we identified for that
particular teacher”. Principal F further elaborated on this when stating that: “The DSG
and the peer together with the teacher discuss all the findings and appropriate forms are
filled”. This was supported by HOD E: “After visiting the DSG and the educator sit down
in a meeting where you would discuss what they discovered, our weaknesses and
strengths, then they will add that into the Personal Growth Plan”.
The above views are supported by literature review (c.f.2.3.2.6).
4.4.1.4 Resolution of Differences
It was also discovered that sometimes differences arise during evaluation of educator in
developmental appraisal. This was indicated by Teacher B1when declaring: “Let me also
mention that if a teacher is not satisfied with the marks allocated to him or her that
matter will be taken to the principal or somebody who is neutral”. In corroborating this
53
fact Principal B explained: “There is a process for a teacher who is not happy with the
appraisal process, it may be taken up with the SMT and the management so that we re-
evaluate”.
This view is in contrast to what the literature review indicated (c.f.2.3.2.7). According to
the ELRC (2003), most differences between the educator and the DSG should be resolved
at that level. Where agreement cannot be reached the matter must be referred to the SDT
which is an elected body with the principal as an ex-officio member and not the SMT as
suggested by the participant.
The following processes were not known to the majority of participating schools: self-
evaluation; pre-evaluation discussions; and monitoring. This is indicated by the fact that
each one of these processes was remembered by only one respondent during all the focus
group interviews.
4.4.1.5 Self-evaluation
Self-evaluation also plays an important role as far as the processes of developmental
appraisal are concerned. The response of Principal A indicated this when stating: “We put
all our information in a file, you asses yourself and then the other two teachers come to
your class”. This process of developmental appraisal is also indicated in the literature
review (c.f.2.3.2.2).
4.4.1.6 Pre-evaluation Discussions
This important process was also mentioned by only one respondent during the interviews.
Principal F responded: “When we meet the teacher in the classroom, the teacher must
come with the peer, they must have the meeting beforehand to discuss what is expected of
her in class”. The finding of the literature review has also revealed pre-evaluation
discussion as one of the processes of developmental appraisal (c.f.2.3.2.3).
54
4.4.1.7 Monitoring
The other process mentioned by only one respondent is monitoring. This process was
mentioned by HOD E when saying: “Then later they request the SDT and yourself to do
follow up on those weaknesses identified: This in the context of developmental appraisal
means monitoring by the SDT to ensure that educators are developed on the identified
weaknesses.
The review of the literature has suggested monitoring as one of the important processes
of developmental appraisal (c.f.2.3.2.8).
There were other processes of developmental appraisal which were never mentioned by
respondents in all the focus group interviews. According to the ELRC, (2003:6) there are
nine processes that must be followed when implementing developmental appraisal.
During the interviews only seven were mentioned and the other two were not mentioned
which suggest that they were not known (c.f.2.3.2.5) and (c.f.2.3.2.9).
4.4.2 The Roles of the Staff Developmental Team (SDT) in implementing DA
During data collection, it was realised that the majority of participants had a fair
understanding of what constitute the roles of the Staff Development Team (SDT) with
regard to the implementation of developmental appraisal. From their respective focus
groups interviews, the participants expressed similar views in most cases concerning
what they perceived as the roles of the SDT in implementing developmental appraisal.
The majority of the views expressed are also supported by the findings of the literature
review of this study (c.f.2.3.1.4).
The interviews revealed that in implementing developmental appraisal, the SDT has
various roles to fulfil which among others include the following: prepares and monitors
management plan; develops school improvement plan; submits all necessary documents
to APO; ensures that all members are trained; coordinates all activities of staff
development; facilitates and gives guidance on DSG establishment; links developmental
55
appraisal to school improvement plan; oversees mentoring and support by DSG; and
develops the school improvement plan.
These roles were generated from the responses of the participants during the interviews
on their view regarding the roles of the SDT in the implementation of developmental
appraisal within the IQMS and are discussed in detail below:
4.4.2.1 Prepares and monitors management plan
The majority of the participants showed a fair amount of understanding of this role of
SDT of preparing and monitoring the management plan. The responses from the
participants during the interviews confirmed this. Principal B revealed: “The SDT
obviously put the whole process in motion by working according to a specific plan”. In
support of this Principal C declared: “SDT’s most important role is to draw up the
programme of action of the IQMS for the whole school”. Teacher D further emphasised
this when saying: “We start off by initiating the programme”.
By programme here the participants are referring to the management plan. To conclude
this HOD A responded: “They draw a plan they take our files because each teacher has
his or her file”.
4.4.2.2 Develops school improvement plan
The interviews also revealed that some participants understand the role of developing the
school improvement plan by the SDT in the implementation of developmental appraisal.
This is indicated by the responses of the following interviewees: Principal B said: “We
look at the PGP and the school improvement plan is then drawn from the PGP”. In
support of this Principal F stated: “I think first is to draw up SIP (the School
Improvement Plan), then the school improvement plan is informed by the PGP for the
teacher are given PGPs for personal growth plan”.
The investigation conducted through the interviews revealed that not all the roles of the
SDT are known by the participants from the selected schools. This has been indicated by
the number of respondents during the interview and the fact that not all the roles of the
56
SDT were mention during the interviews (c.f.2.3.1.4). The following roles of the SDT
were not known by the majority of the participants: submits all necessary documentations
to APO; ensures that all members are trained; coordinates all activities of staff
development; facilitates and gives guidance on DSG establishment; links developmental
appraisal to school improvement plan; and oversees mentoring and support by DSG. This
is evidenced by the fact that only one or two participants could mention each one of these
roles of SDT.
4.4.2.3 Submits all necessary documentations to APO
This role of the SDT was mentioned by only one participant during the interview.
Teacher B said: “It is ongoing on different interval, making sure that required documents
until the final submission”. What the participant was trying to indicate, was that the
process of DA is ongoing but at the end of the year there are documents that have to be
submitted by the SDT to the APO.
4.4.2.4 Ensure that all members are trained
The participants expressed the view that the role of the SDT is to ensure that all members
of staff are trained after the processes of developmental appraisal have been
implemented. This was evidenced by the response of HOD A: “To help develop the
young teachers or with difficulties, to help assess them to overcome those difficulties”.
This point was also emphasised by HOD E, when stating: “They usually organise
meetings where we as staff discuss challenges”.
4.4.2.5 Facilitates and give guidance on DSG establishment
The interviews also revealed that some participants were aware of the role of the SDT,
which is to facilitate and to give guidance on the establishment of the DSG. This fact was
confirmed by the response of Principal C, when stating that: “And also lead to the
formation of DSG as well”. The principal here was explaining that after the election of
SDT, the SDT then facilitates the establishment of DSGs.
57
Some of the SDT roles were never mentioned by the participants as captured in the
literature review (c.f.2.3.1.4). This suggests that those roles not mentioned were not
known by participants because in all the focus group interviews the respondents
remembered the above roles but never remember these ones.
4.4.3 The Roles of the Area Project Office (APO) officials in the implementation of
DA
During data collection, it was discovered that little was known by participants, regarding
the roles the APO officials play in implementing developmental appraisal. This fact was
indicated by the responses of the participants. Only a few of them could mention at least
three functions of the APO officials when implementing developmental appraisal. These
roles are monitoring, control of IQMS, and Educator development. Discussions in detail
follow below:
4.4.3.1 Monitoring
This important function of the APO official that ensures that IQMS is implemented
consistently was mentioned by only two participants. HOD A mentioned: “They always
come to do monitoring”. In corroboration with this Teacher C1 declared: “They normally
visit us to come and check the process”.
4.4.3.2 Control
With regard to the role of APO officials of controlling the implementation of
developmental appraisal, some educators indicated that they have an understanding of
what this role entails. The response of the following interviewees confirmed this: HOD A
responded: “We communicate with department to report on the progress we made on
IQMS and when forms are to be completed”. This suggests that it is the APO officials
who control the progress and give dates for the submission of required documents. In
support of this Teacher C2 said: “They normally sent us circulars, which indicate the
dates or which we should start with the implementation”. Principal D, on the other hand
mentioned that: “They make sure we have forms and booklets, we have criteria that we
got from department and circuit managers tell us what is expected of us”.
58
4.4.3.3 Educator Development
Only a few participants seem to understand the role of APO officials with regard to
educator development. This was revealed by the response of only two participants during
the interviews. Principal C stated: “Learning Area Specialists will then assist by
workshops on those areas that had been identified”. In support to this Principal F
declared: “Teachers go to workshops, subject advisors come to school and during the
meetings the HODs discover those areas needing development and subject advisors are
asked to help the teachers”.
In contrast to what the empirical investigation indicated, the literature study on
developmental appraisal indicated that the roles of the APO official are more than what
were discovered during the interviews (c.f.2.3.1.6).
4.4.4 Perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the SDT and the APO officials in
implementing DA
4.4.4.1 The effectiveness of SDTs
The findings of the empirical investigations revealed that the majority of the participants
are of the opinion that the SDTs in their respective schools are implementing
developmental appraisal effectively. This assumption is confirmed by the following
responses: Teacher B2 claimed: “We have excellent help you can come to them, they are
always there to help you with problems, whether it is a discipline problem or a problem
with a fellow staff member, they are always there to help you”. Here the teacher is in fact
referring to the School Management Team and not the SDT as the SDT deals only with
educator development and not discipline. Principal B when elaborating on effectiveness
of the SDT indicated that: “They make teachers better teachers at the end of the day”.
HOD C further explained on this when saying: “The SDT assists HODs to make sure that
each teacher go to class and prepares”. Principal C further stated that: “Weaknesses are
identified and how you are going to rectify those weaknesses”. Here what is meant is that
the SDT helps the teachers to develop in those identified weaknesses discovered during
developmental appraisal. HOD E on the other hand suggested: “I can say is effective
because when the departmental officials come here there is evidence of our files in the
59
office of the SDT, every year we submit the results of our performance”. To add to this
Principal F said: “We never experience grievances everything goes well every year. We
also have a master file to be scrutinised by anybody from outside”.
Only one participant believed that the SDT of their school is not effective. The response
of Teacher C1 was that: “It is not that much effective in the sense that sometimes follow
ups are not made, probably because of exorbitant amount of work that is in front of the
teachers”. By follow-ups the participant means the follow-up on the identified
weaknesses of educators needing development.
4.4.4.2 The Effectiveness of APO officials
It was discovered that some participants believe that the APO officials are not
implementing developmental appraisal effectively, whereas there were those who believe
that they are effective in implementing DA. There were again some who did not want to
say whether the officials are effective or not, perhaps it was because they really do not
understand the role that the APO officials should play in implementing DA.
To indicate the perception that the APO officials are not effective, Teacher B3 said: “I
don’t know whether they are working undercover, you hardly see them”. In collaboration
with this view Teacher B2 declared: “Because they don’t do IQMS, but PMDS, that is
why they don’t know what is going on at schools. Lack of training from the APO officials
was also one of the things the participants complained about. Principal B complained: “I
have had no training. As to the teachers they have no contact with any official who is
involved in appraisal. The only visit is by circuit manager”. Teacher B3 stresses this
when complaining that: “There is no communication we are not getting support from
them”. HOD F also is of the opinion that they are not effective in management of school
when stating that: “I will also make an assumption that they are not effective,
particularly when it comes to management of school development. For example the
surroundings, they normally don’t check what is said and they classify school quintile
wrong”. Here the respondent was referring to checking the area where the school is
situated so that the school must be classified correctly for funding allocations.
60
There were participants who, on the contrary to what was said above, believe that the
APO officials are effective. For example Teacher A1 declared: “We always get
documents from them”. Teacher C1 on the other hand responded: “They normally call us
to assemble where we are going to tackle problems. They come up with programmes to
develop us”.
4.4.5 Challenges on the implementation of DA
The other objective of this study was to look at the challenges that face the educators
when implementing developmental appraisal in schools. From the focus group interviews
the following emerged as challenges that hamper proper implementation of
developmental appraisal in most schools that participated in the study:
Inadequate support from the APO;
Lack of resources for educator development;
Inadequate time frame for implementation;
Disruption of normal teaching and learning;
Lack of honesty on the part of appraisees and appraisers; and
Conflict
The above challenges are discussed in detail below:
4.4.5.1 Inadequate support from the APO
Data collection revealed that inadequate support from the APO is one of the challenges
that educator are facing after being appraised. In confirmation to this view the
participants responded as follows: Teacher B2: “When there is a meeting they don’t show
up”. In support to this HOD A stated: “There are some of the APO officials that are not
involved with the subject, some subject advisors see their teachers more than the others,
they make excuses why they don’t see us”.
This challenge was also detected in the review of the related literature (c.f.2.4.1).
61
4.4.5.2 Lack of resources for educator development
The second challenge discovered during empirical investigation of this study was lack of
resources for educator development. This challenge was raised by Principal A by
responding as follows: “The other issue is the human resources to make sure that all that
is needed to develop teachers is actually there, more especially financial resources”.
The investigation of the related literature has also revealed lack of resources as a problem
in implementing developmental appraisal (c.f.2.4.1).
4.4.5.3 Inadequate time frames for implementation
During the focus group interviews the researcher discovered that the time allocated to
implement developmental appraisal at some school is not enough. This is indicated by the
response of HOD E: “The first one is the issue of time, it is difficult to intertwine this and
our normal practice here at school, and sometimes you find that this is difficult for the
DSGs to meet. The issue of time is a challenge”.
This challenge has also been discovered during the literature review of this study
(c.f.2.4.1).
4.4.5.4 Disruption of normal teaching and learning
The empirical investigations also indicated that normal teaching and learning are
disrupted when educators are visited in class by two member of the DSG. This was
revealed by Teacher D1: “Class visit that we have done is often at the same time and
when we have to visit the teacher we have to leave our classes. Two teachers sit in the
class to observe what is going on”. In addition to this HOD F also mentioned the issue of
examinations that are affected by this class visit when stating: “The main concern I can
raise is that normally we start late and sometimes a cycle coincide with examinations and
I see that as a major challenge”.
62
4.4.5.5 Lack of honesty on the part of appraisee and appraiser
The researcher also realised that the issue of honesty was a challenge while collecting
information by means of interviews. The respondents believe that educators are not
honest when scoring themselves or their colleagues during appraisal of their performance
to diagnose weaknesses. Principal B justified this when responding: “Teachers over rate
themselves”. In corroborating this Teacher B3 stated: “The whole thing is on
transparency in scoring, we score ourselves very high”. To further clarify this HOD E
responded: “I think the other challenge is the issue of honesty. You will find this
performance standard requires whether the teacher is active in extra-curricular activities
and the peer is shy to score him or her low. No honesty on the part of the evaluator and
the evaluee”. The other issue is that of selecting a suitable topic so that the educator
should excel in class. This issue was raised by Teacher C1: “Teachers select a topic that
is suitable for them instead of picking the one that is difficult”.
4.4.5.6 Conflict
Conflict was also identified as one of the challenges that are encountered by educators
when implementing developmental appraisal within the IQMS during the interviews. The
conflict that might arise, according to the response of one of the participants, is in the
issue of scoring one another during educator evaluation. Principal E’s response confirmed
this: “If teachers over rate themselves it can lead to conflict”.
The findings from literature also identified conflict as one of the challenges facing
educators when implementing developmental appraisal (c.f.2.4.1).
4.5 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
During the data collection process it was discovered that the educators, HODs and
principals in the Matlosana Area Project Office secondary schools have knowledge of
some processes of DA, some roles of the SDT and APO officials in implementing
developmental appraisal. This is evidenced by some similarities between what the
findings of the interviews revealed and what was captured in the literature review. There
were however, some of the processes of DA and roles of SDT and APO officials which
63
were not known, this is revealed by the fact that these processes or roles were never
mentioned in all six focus group interviews.
It was also revealed during data collection that the majority of the participants are of the
opinion that the SDTs in their respective schools are effective. With regard to the APO
officials there were those educators that believe the APO officials are not effective
whereas the others believe they are effective in implementing DA.
The findings have also revealed some challenges that are facing educators in the
Matlosana APO when implementing DA. The challenges indicated are: inadequate
support from the APO; lack of resources; inadequate time frame for implementation;
disruption of normal teaching and learning; lack of honesty on the part of the appraisees
and appraisers; and conflict. There is also evidence of some similarities between the
finding of the empirical investigations and literature review on the challenges of
implementing developmental appraisal.
4.6 CONCLUSION
In this chapter, a brief synopsis of the methodology was given, and an analysis process
was undertaken. The findings of research are also discussed and verified with findings of
the literature review. Lastly a summary of findings is also presented. Chapter five will
focus on summary, findings, recommendations and conclusion.
64
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In the preceding chapter on data analysis, the researcher interpreted and analysed data in
order to come to the conclusion of the research. This chapter will conclude the study by
giving a summary of an overview background of the study, summary of important
findings from the literature and empirical investigations. Recommendations, limitation of
the study, further research and conclusion will also be presented.
5.2 SUMMARY
It was pointed out in chapter one that before 1995 there was no acceptable evaluation
system in South Africa to evaluate educators. This resulted in conflict between teacher
unions and the department of education. The new instrument was then developed to
evaluate educators. The new instrument came to be known as Integrated Quality
Management System (IQMS). The aims of IQMS are to: identify specific needs of
educators, schools and district offices for support and development; provide support for
continued growth; promote accountability; monitor an institution’s overall effectiveness;
and evaluate an educator’s performance. The aim of Developmental Appraisal (DA)
within the IQMS is to facilitate the personal and professional development of educators
in order to improve the quality of teaching practice and educational management. The
purpose of DA is to appraise individual educators in a transparent manner with a view of
determining the areas of strengths and weaknesses, and drawing up programmes for
individual development (ELRC, 2003:1).
Against this background the aim of the study was formulated as follows: to examine
teachers’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the implementation of
Developmental Appraisal in the Matlosana Area Project Office schools.
65
The aim was further divided into the following sub-questions:
How are the processes of DA being carried out in the Matlosana APO schools?
What are the roles of the SDT and APO in the implementation of DA in the
Matlosana APO schools?
What are the perceptions of educators regarding the effectiveness of SDT and
APO in the implementation of DA in the Matlosana APO schools?
What recommendations can be made that may serve as guidelines for the
effective implementation of DA?
The research objectives were to
describe the processes of DA implementation in the Matlosana APO schools;
describe the roles of the SDT and the APO in the implementation of DA in the
Matlosana APO schools;
ascertain the views of educators regarding the effectiveness of SDT and APO in
the implementation of DA; and
make recommendations that may serve as guidelines for the effective
implementation of DA within the IQMS.
A literature review was presented in chapter two, this serves to describe and explain the
major facets of the study.
To have a broader understanding of Appraisal, Staff/Personnel Appraisal in general was
discussed and thereafter the Implementation of Developmental Appraisal in schools. In
this chapter the following were also discussed to have a clearer understanding on DA
implementation: the roles and responsibilities of officials tasked with the implementation
of DA; the processes of implementing DA; challenges on the implementation of DA; and
the effective strategies of implementing DA.
The detailed description of research methodology is given in chapter three of the study.
Research design, data collection methods, data analysis process and ethical
considerations were explained in detail.
66
Data analysis detailed description is presented in chapter four of the study. This chapter
specifically dealt with a brief synopsis of methodology, data analysis process, research
findings, and summary of findings.
5.3 SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FINDINGS
In the preceding section a summary of the entire study was given and in this section, a
summary of the important findings and conclusion from empirical investigations will be
discussed.
5.3.1 Findings from Literature
During the data collection on literature review the following findings were revealed
regarding the effective implementation of DA:
5.3.1.1 Roles and responsibilities of officials tasked with the implementation of DA
In order to understand how DA is implemented in schools, the researcher deemed it
necessary to discuss the roles and responsibilities of officials tasked with the
implementation of DA. Briefly the findings of literature indicated the following officials
and their responsibilities:
The Principal has the overall responsibility to ensure that IQMS is implemented
uniformly and effectively at school (c.f.2.3.1.1);
The Educator must undertake self-evaluation of her or his performance
(c.f.2.3.1.2);
The SMT informs educators of in-service training and other programmes that will
be offered and make the necessary arrangements for educators to attend
(c.f.2.3.1.3);
The SDT coordinates all the activities pertaining to staff development
(c.f.2.3.1.4);
The DSG provides mentoring and support to educators (c.f.2.3.1.5); and
The APO has the overall responsibility of advocacy, training and proper
implementation of IQMS (c.f.2.3.1.6).
67
In implementing DA, the officials tasked with the implementation have to follow certain
processes of DA within the IQMS. These processes are discussed below:
5.3.1.2 The Processes of implementing DA
The literature of the study indicated the following processes when implementing DA:
Planning is done by the SDT and the SMT and must incorporate all the processes
and take the school’s year plan into account (c.f.2.3.2.1);
Self-evaluation by each educator to familiarise herself or himself with evaluation
instrument and reflect critically on her or his performance (c.f.2.3.2.2);
Pre-evaluation discussion between the educator and the DSG to clarify all issues
pertaining to the educator’s evaluation (c.f.2.3.2.3);
Lesson observation is done to determine baseline evaluation with which
subsequent evaluation can be compared in order to determine progress
(c.f.2.3.2.4);
Evaluation in respect to other performance standards which is based on general
ongoing observation, discussion and feedback by DSG, submission of
documentary evidence, proof of participation and other information provided by
the educator (c.f.2.3.2.5);
Feedback and discussion by the DSG and the educator to resolve differences if
any (c.f.2.3.2.6);
Resolution of differences and/or grievances which is done by the grievance
committee, but the final decision is taken by the head of department to resolve the
grievance (c.f.2.3.2.7);
Monitoring which is ongoing must be conducted by the departmental officials,
SMTs and DSGs to ensure that the implementation is accurate and consistent
(c.f.2.3.2.8); and
Second and subsequent year of implementation where educators are evaluated
only once a year and the evaluation of the previous year becomes the baseline
evaluation (c.f.2.3.2.9).
68
It was also discovered that when following these processes of implementing DA there are
certain challenges that educators encountered.
5.3.1.3 Challenges on the implementation of DA
The following challenges were discovered during the review of the literature (c.f.2.4.1):
Lack of professional competence, openness and respect towards colleagues;
Lack of a professional collaborative climate and culture where staff work and
reflect together to improve teaching in most schools;
Unsatisfactory professional qualification of many educators and mastery of the
subject knowledge and pedagogy;
Defensive educators towards any form of performance appraisal, especially
classroom visit;
Difficult teaching conditions and new policies;
Lack of capacity for educator monitoring;
The use of one standardised evaluation instrument for both development and
reward or sanction;
Not enough attention given towards the educators’ needs;
No clarity on the responsibility of the department of providing facilities and
resources to support teachers;
Lack of rigour in the whole process shown by poor target setting and the line
manager not being the appraiser;
The process not fitting into school’s training, development plan and the yearly
cycle being incongruous with management planning; and
The link with pay poses potential problem in the implementation of DA and it is
undermining the professional development supported by the educators.
These challenges indicate that the implementation of DA in schools is not as it is
supposed to be and it means something has to be done to address these challenges
that hamper the effective implementation of DA. There are suggested effective
strategies that can help schools implement DA effectively that were revealed by the
literature review.
69
5.3.1.4 Effective strategies of implementing DA
In order to implement DA effectively it was discovered that the following strategies can
be useful (c.f.2.4.2): educators should discuss aspects of their professional development
with the department of basic education; the management should be involved in teacher
development; approach to development to be negotiated with the educator; there must be
involvement of an outsider on educator evaluation; there must be honest discussions
between the appraiser and appraisee; evaluators with background in appraisee’s subject
and grade level should be used to evaluate educators; appraisal should encourage,
recognise and value good work whilst addressing any weaknesses with suggestions for
future action; there must be regular monitoring and improvement of teacher’s
effectiveness in the classroom; appraisal should be based on valid or realistic assumptions
about specific teaching realities and the available professional appraisal and support
capacity in the system; the school should have an effective training strategy and mount
professional programmes where purposes and procedures are fully shared and explained
to all participants; there must be transparency, trust, and honesty in the implementation of
DA at school; and the implementation system should be flexible, designed by each school
to meet its own needs.
If the above strategies are carried out, DA will be implemented effectively in schools
because the objective of developmental appraisal is to diagnose educators’ weaknesses in
a transparent manner in order to develop them. This will happen when educators are
involved in designing their development programmes. The use of the outsider may also
help with the issue of fairness in the evaluation of educators. If DA is monitored regularly
the schools may be able to implement it effectively because if there are faults in the
implementation they are likely to be corrected.
5.3.2 Conclusion from the empirical investigations
The findings of the empirical investigations were organised into categories based on the
themes derived from the interview schedule. The themes are:
The processes of DA within IQMS;
The roles of the SDT in implementing DA;
70
The roles of the APO officials in implementing DA;
Educators’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of SDTs and the APO officials
in implementing DA; and
Challenges on the implementation of DA.
5.3.2.1 The processes of DA within IQMS
The first objective of this study was to describe the processes of DA in the Matlosana
APO schools (c.f.1.3).
During the interview it was discovered that the participants had some knowledge of the
processes of DA, but the fact that some processes were never mentioned, means that not
all the processes are followed when implementing DA in some of the Matlosana APO
schools. The processes which the participants were able to mention and describe are:
Planning (c.f.4.4.1.1);
Lesson observation (c.f.4.4.1.2);
Feedback and discussions (c.f.4.4.1.3);
Resolution of differences (c.f.4.4.1.4);
Self-evaluation (c.f.4.4.1.5);
Pre-evaluation discussions (c.f.4.4.1.6); and
Monitoring (c.f.4.4.1.7).
The processes which were not mentioned are:
Evaluation in respect to other performance standards (c.f.2.3.2.5); and
Second and subsequent year of implementation (c.f.2.3.2.9).
This suggests that these processes are not carried out at schools and for DA to be
implemented effectively all processes need to be followed.
The second objective of the study was to describe the roles of the Staff Development
Team and the Area Project Office in the implementation of Developmental Appraisal in
the Matlosana APO schools (c.f.1.3).
71
5.3.2.2 The roles of the SDT in implementing DA
The empirical investigations also indicated that the majority of the participating
secondary schools did not know all the roles that the SDTs have to play when
implementing DA at schools in the Matlosana APO (c.f.4.4.2). The roles that the
participants know are
prepares and monitors management plan (c.f.4.4.2.1);
develops school improvement plan (c.f.4.4.2.2);
submits all necessary documents to APO (c.f.4.4.2.3);
ensures that all members are trained (c.f.4.4.2.4); and
facilitates and give guidance on DSG establishment (c.f.4.4.2.5).
The roles that participants did not know are (c.f.2.3.1.4)
coordinates all activities pertaining to staff development;
links Developmental Appraisal to the School Improvement Plan (SIP);
liaises with the department in respect of high priority needs;
monitors effectiveness of the IQMS and reports to the relevant persons;
ensures that all records and documentations on IQMS are maintained;
oversees mentoring and support by DSGs;
coordinates ongoing support provided during two development cycle each year;
completes the necessary documentation for Performance Measurement (PM) for
pay or grade progression, sign off on these to ensure fairness;
deals with the differences between appraisees and appraisers in order to resolve
the differences;
coordinates the internal WSE processes;
ensures that the IQMS is applied consistently; and
liaises with the external WSE Team to coordinate and manage the cyclical
external WSE process.
72
5.3.2.3 The roles of the APO officials in implementing DA
The interviews have also revealed that the majority of participants did not know what
roles the APO officials are playing when helping schools to implement DA. It therefore
means that the APO officials are not helping schools to implement DA effectively
(c.f.4.4.3). The only roles that some participants were able to remember are:
Monitoring (c.f.4.4.3.1);
Control (c.f.4.4.3.2); and
Educator development (c.f.4.4.3.3).
This means that these are the only roles that the officials are performing when
implementing DA. The roles which were not known during the interviews and which
means are not carried out during the implementation of DA are (c.f.2.3.1.6):
Overall responsibility of advocacy, training and proper implementation of IQMS;
Responsibility with regard to the development and arrangement of professional
development programmes in accordance with identified needs of educators and its
own improvement plan;
Moderate evaluation results of schools in order to ensure consistency;
Ensure that the evaluation results of schools are captured and processed in time to
ensure successful implementation of salary or pay progression; and
Ensure that the implementation processes in schools are monitored on an ongoing
basis.
The fact that the roles of the SDT and APO are not all known by the participants,
suggests that the SDT and APO officials are not carrying out all the responsibilities that
they are supposed to carry out to ensure that IQMS is implemented effectively in schools.
The third objective of the study was to ascertain the views of the educators regarding the
effectiveness of the SDTs and APO officials in implementing Developmental Appraisal
(c.f.1.3).
73
5.3.2.4.1 Educators’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the SDT in
implementing DA
The majority of the participants believe that the SDTs in their respective schools are
implementing DA effectively in the Matlosana APO in spite of the challenges faced by
the SDTs (c.f.4.4.4.1).
5.3.2.4.2 Educators’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of APO officials in
implementing DA
The majority of the participants were of the opinion that the APO officials are not
effective in helping schools in the Matlosana APO to implement DA (c.f.4.4.4.2)
The fourth objective of the interviews was to find out what are the obstacles faced by
educators in the Matlosana APO schools when implementing developmental appraisal.
5.3.2.5 Challenges on the implementation of DA
During the investigations it was revealed that there are challenges that educators face
when they implement DA in their respective schools. Challenges include:
Inadequate support from the APO (c.f.4.4.5.1);
Lack of resources for educator development (c.f.4.4.5.2);
Inadequate time frames for implementation (c.f.4.4.5.3);
Disruption of normal teaching and learning (c.f.4.4.5.4);
Lack of honesty on the part of the appraisees and appraisers (c.f.4.4.5.5); and
Conflict (c.f.4.4.5.6).
5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings from the literature and the empirical investigations have revealed that there
are challenges when developmental appraisal within the IQMS is implemented in
schools. The following are recommendations that may be used for the effective
implementation of developmental appraisal in schools:
74
5.4.1 Training APO officials, SDTs and Educators on DA
It is recommended that more training should be provided on the implementation of DA
for the APO officials and SDTs to empower them for the roles that they have to play to
help schools implement DA effectively. The investigation has revealed that their roles are
not known which suggests that they are not playing their roles to implement DA
effectively. It is further recommended that more workshops on the processes of DA and
roles of officials tasked with the implementation of DA be conducted for educators to
understand all the processes that need to be followed. The educators should also be able
to voice their frustrations and discuss with colleagues effective strategies to implement
DA.
5.4.2 Provision of resources
In order to be trained in the identified weaknesses during the evaluation of their
performance, resources like workshop materials and venues need to be provided for this.
Each school should be provided with resources according to their school improvement
needs. It is further recommended that educators’ in-service training should arise naturally
from the evaluation of their performance and not be prescribed by APO officials in
isolation. It should be a negotiated responsibility.
5.4.3 Proper Planning for the implementation
It is recommended that DA within the IQMS should be integrated with school
management plan to deal with the issue of inadequate time frame for implementation.
This will also help the SMT to plan together with the SDT for programmes for teacher
development on the identified weaknesses and development on other curriculum
implementation.
5.4.4 Promoting honesty
All stakeholders should see appraisal as an important opportunity for honest discussions
which may benefit the individual educator, the school and education in general when
weaknesses are identified and improved upon. It is recommended that the appraisers
should not judge but promote agreements which will focus on how to help the appraisee
75
improve on the identified weaknesses. The appraiser should also be knowledgeable on
the appraisee’s subject or learning area in order to develop the appraisee.
5.4.5 Dealing with conflict
To avoid conflict, there must be clarity on the purpose of the evaluation system, there
must be trust between the appraisee and the appraiser, there must be honesty and the
process must be transparent. It is also advisable that there must be professional
collaboration between the appraisee and the appraiser with regular meetings to negotiate
appraisal purpose and outcome. From these meetings, realistic targets that are within the
job description of the teacher should be discussed and agreed upon at each stage of the
appraisal process. It is also important that the teacher developmental appraisal process
should recognise teachers as full partners in the process, not as raw objects to be
developed by SMTs and APO officials.
5.5 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
The findings could have been enhanced by having homogeneous groups. This could have
enabled educators to express themselves freely in their groups as compared to when they
are with their School Management Team members (Principal and HOD) in the same
group. It was however difficult to have the different homogeneous groups (principals,
HODs and educators) in one place. Other studies may take this into consideration.
5.6 FURTHER RESEARCH
The aim of this study, which is to examine teachers’ perceptions regarding the
effectiveness of the implementation of DA in the Matlosana APO schools, has revealed
new problems that may be researched in future. With reference to the findings of this
study the researcher would like to recommend the following for further research:
The empirical investigations revealed that the APO officials are not effective in
helping schools implement DA effectively. It is therefore necessary to
investigate the role of the APO officials in the implementation of DA in
schools.
76
A comparative study of challenges facing educators in well resourced town
schools and less resourced township schools to establish whether resources
have any impact on educator development.
A study on the impact of effective teacher developmental appraisal and the
performance of learners in secondary schools.
5.7 CONCLUSION
The implementation of developmental appraisal within the IQMS was brought about by
the fact that in SA there was no acceptable evaluation system for educator. Educators
need to be evaluated in order to diagnose strengths and weaknesses in their performance.
Teachers will then be developed on identified weaknesses to improve teaching and
learning at schools.
The purpose of this study was to examine teachers’ perceptions regarding the
effectiveness of this evaluation instrument called Developmental Appraisal within the
IQMS in the Matlosana APO schools. The findings from the literature review revealed
that for DA to be implemented effectively, officials tasked with implementation need to
perform certain duties, and certain processes need to be followed. Contrary to the
findings from literature review, the findings of empirical investigations indicated that
officials tasked with the implementation are not doing what they are supposed to do and
the processes are not followed. This was indicated by the fact that not all the tasks of
officials on the implementation, and the processes of implementation are known in the
Matlosana APO schools.
The above suggests that in the Matlosana APO schools Developmental Appraisal is not
implemented effectively and therefore teachers’ performance cannot be enhanced. If
teachers are not performing as they are supposed to means that learners are also going to
suffer in terms of poor performance.
77
BIBLIOGAPHY
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Razavieh, A. & Sorensen, C. 2006. Introduction to Research in
Education. (7th
Edition) Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C & Razavieh, A. 2002. Introduction to Research in Education. (6th
Edition) Canada: Wadsworth.
Barnard, 1999. Performance applause. 42 (4): 1-2.
Bartlett, S. 2000. The development. British journal of educational studies 48 (1) 24-37.
Bell, J. 2005. Doing your Research Project: A guide for first-time researchers in
education, health and science. 4th
Edition. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Bennett, H with Lister, M and McManus, M. 1992. Teacher Appraisal: Survival and
beyond. London: Longman.
Best, J.W. and Kahn, J.V. 1998. Research in Education. Eighth Edition. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. 2007. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction
to Theory and Methods (Forth Edition). Boston Pearson Education Group, Inc.
Campbell, R.J.2003. Differential Teacher Effectiveness: towards a model for research
and teacher appraisal. Oxford review of education 29 (3): 348-362.
Collins, K.J., Du Plooy, G.M., Grobbelaar, M.M., Terre Blanche, M.J., Van Eden, R.,
Van Rensburg, G.H. and Wigston, D.J. 2000. Research in Social Sciences. Only study
guide for RSC 201-h. Pretoria: South Africa.
78
Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiring and Research Design. Choosing Among Five
Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Declerq, F. 2008. Perspective in education. Teacher quality appraisal and development:
The flaws in IQMS 26 (1): 7-18.
Devries, D.L., Morison, A.M., Shulman, S.L. and Gerlach, M.L. 1981. Performance
Appraisal on the Line. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouche, C.B. & Delport, C.S.L. 2005. Research at grass roots
for the social sciences and human services professions (3rd
Edition). Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Fidler, B. And Cooper, R. 1992. Staff Appraisal and Staff Management in School and
Colleges: A Guide to Implementation. Harlow: Longman.
Fleisch, B. 2008. Primary education in crisis. Why learners underachieve in reading and
mathematics. Johannesburg: Juta.
Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E. and Airasian, P. 2006. Educational Research: Competencies for
Analysis and Applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Gardiner, M. 2004. Teacher appraisal: Conditions of Service. South African Journal of
Education 7 (1): 17-24.
Hancock, R. & Settle, D. 1990. Teacher Appraisal and Self-Evaluation: A Practical
Guide. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Hartley, D. 1992. Teacher Appraisal: A Policy Analysis. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic
Press.
79
Hitleman. D.R. and Simon, A.J. 2002. Interpreting Educational Research: An
Introduction for Consumers of Research. Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hornby, A.S. 1986. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Current English Dictionary. Cape Town:
Pharos.
Hunt, N. 1992. How to Conduct Staff Appraisals. United Kingdom: How to Books.
Humphreys, K. & Thomas, M. 1995. School Organisation: Searching for Markers,
Collective self-appraisal 15 (2): 133-144.
Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. 2004. Educational Research. (2nd
Edition). Quantitative,
Qualitative and Mixed Approaches. Boston: Pearson.
Jones, J. 1993. Appraisal and Staff Development in Schools. London: Routledge.
Langenbach, M., Vaugh, C. and Aagaard, L. 1994. An Introduction to Educational
Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Litheko, SRS. 2001. An Appraisal Model for Academic Staff Performance at Technical
Colleges in South Africa. Welkom: Vista University.
McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher. S. 2001. Research in Education: A Conceptual
Introduction. (5th
edition). New York: Longman.
McMillan, J. H & Schumacher, S. 2001. Research in Education: A Conceptual
Introduction. (4th
Edition). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
McMillan, JH. & Schumacher, S. 2006. Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry.
Boston: Pearson.
80
Mercer, J. 2006. Appraising higher education faculty in the Middle East: Leadership
lesson from a different world. Management in education 20 (1): 17-26.
Metcalfe, M. 2008. Why our schools do not work. Sunday Times 13/01/2008.
Monyatsi, P. 2006. Teacher appraisal in Botswana Secondary Schools: A critical
analysis. A South African Journal of education 26 (2): 215-228.
Mpolweni, S.N. 1998. Negotiating a system of appraisal: Education practice (1): 54-57.
Murphy, KR. & Cleveland, JN. 1995. Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,
Organisational, and Goal-Based Perspective. London: Sage Publication.
Myland, L. 1992. Management Skill Guide: Managing Performance Appraisal. Surey:
Croner.
Narsee, H. 2000. The common and contested meanings of education districts in South
Africa. Unpublished doctoral thesis (PhD), Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
Ngwenya, VC. 2006. Performance Appraisal as a Model of Staff Supervision in
Zimbabwean Schools with special Reference to the Makoba Circuit. Pretoria: University
of South Africa.
Phillip, T. 1990. Appraising Performance for Results. London: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Poster, C. And Poster, D. 1991. Teacher appraisal: A Guide to training. London:
Routledge.
Quinlan, O. With Davidoff, S. 2005. Valuing Teachers Through Appraisal: Teacher In-
service Project. Cape Town: Via Africa.
81
Revil, D. 1992. Working Paper on Staff Development and Appraisal.
Roberts, G.E. 1994. Maximising performance appraisal system acceptance: Perspective
from Municipal Government Personnel Administration. Public Management. IGI.
SADTU. 2002. Comments on discussion document:” Performance standards for teacher
appraisal and teacher development” February.
SADTU. 2005. Quality teachers for quality education training for a stronger teaching
force. October Scheerens J 2000. The school effectiveness knowledge base as a guide for
school improvement.
Schulze, S., Myburg, C.P. and Poggenpoel, M. 2005. Research Methodology. Study
Guide 2 for MEDEM 2-R. Pretoria: University of South Africa.
Shalem, Y. 2003. Do we have a theory of change? Calling change models to account.
Perspectives in education, 21 (1): 29-49.
Shank, G. & Brown, L. 2007. Exploring Educational Research Literacy. New York:
Routledge.
South Africa. 1998. Education Labour Relation Council (ELRC), Developmental
Appraisal for Educators. Pretoria: Government Printer.
South Africa. 2003. Education Labour Relation Council (ELRC), Integrated Quality
Management System. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Thomas, H. & Patten, JR. 1982. A Manager’s Guide to Performance Appraisal: Pride,
Prejudice and the Law of Equal Opportunity. London: Collier Macmillan Publishers.
82
Tobin, G.A. & Begley, C.M. 2004. Methodological rigour within a qualitative
framework. Journal of advanced nursing, 48 (4): 388-396.
Toch, T. 2008. Teacher evaluation. Educational Leadership 66 (2): 32-33
Tomlison, H. 2003. Teacher Appraisal. Educational Management and Administration 31
(2): 220-222.
Twycross, A. & Shields, L. 2005. Validity and reliability – what’s it all about? Paediatric
nursing.
Wadvalla, I. 2005. The Implementation of the IQMS in two different schools in Gauteng,
Unpublished Bed Hons project. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand.
Weber, E. 2005. New Control and Accountability for South African Teachers and
Schools: IQMS Perspective in Education, 23 (2): 63-72.
83
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Research topic: “The Implementation of Developmental Appraisal in the Matlosana Area
Project Office Schools”.
1. How are the processes of Developmental Appraisal (DA) within IQMS being carried
out in your school?
Can you mention and describe the processes of DA within the IQMS in your
school?
Which processes are being followed when implementing DA within the IQMS in
your school?
Can you explain how each process of implementing DA within IQMS is carried
out in your school?
2. What are the roles of the Staff Development Team (SDT) in implementing DA in your
school?
How does the SDT in your school implement DA?
Which functions are performed by the SDT in your school to implement DA?
Can you elaborate on the duties of the SDT in your school when implementing
DA?
3. What are the roles of the Area Project Office (APO), officials in the implementation
DA in your school?
How do the APO officials help your school in the implementation of DA?
How do you think the APO officials should help your school in the
implementation of DA?
What functions according to the IQMS document should the APO officials
perform to implement DA?
84
4. What are your perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the SDT and the APO
officials in implementing DA in your school?
Do you think the SDT and APO officials are implementing DA effectively in your
school?
Do you think the SDT and APO officials are carrying out their responsibilities
efficiently in your school?
Is the DA being implemented in accordance the IQMS document requirements by
the SDT and APO officials in your school?
5. What are the challenges on the implementation of DA in your school?
Which problems do you encounter when implementing DA in your school?
What are your concerns regarding the effectiveness in the implementation of DA
in your school?
What do you think are the obstacles on effective implementation of DA in your
school?
